ArticleScientific reports2025
Agreement and repeatability of a novel portable transpalpebral tonometer for home tonometry versus non-contact and rebound tonometry.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A newly developed handheld device, the IC01 transpalpebral tonometer, was engineered to determine intraocular pressure (IOP) autonomously through upper eyelid palpation. This study aimed to evaluate the repeatability of the IC01 and to investigate its agreement with a non-contact tonometer (TOPCON CT-800). A comparative design was employed to analyze the agreement in IOP measurements between the innovative IC01 device and both the non-contact (TOPCON CT-800) and rebound (iCare IC200) tonometers, as well as its repeatability. Trained operators recorded measurements from 189 subjects at both the initial and one-month follow-up visits, adhering to a randomized sequence. IOP measurements from the IC01 showed no statistically significant difference from those obtained with the iCare IC200 or TOPCON CT-800. Repeatability, indicated by the intraclass correlation coefficient, averaged 0.77 for right eyes and 0.75 for left eyes. Furthermore, the mean IOP values at the one-month follow-up were 8.65 ± 4.15 mmHg for the right eye and 7.68 ± 2.61 mmHg. No sight-threatening adverse events occurred. Regarding patient preference among a subset of 69 respondents, 46.37% (n = 32) favored the IC01, compared to 17.39% (n = 12) for the TOPCON CT-800, while 36.23% (n = 25) expressed no preference. Gender did not show a significant correlation with outcomes. However, participants aged 50 years or younger demonstrated a greater preference for the IC01 (χ
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.