ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Goldman applanation tonometer, noncontact tonometer and trans-palpebral tonometer.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate reliability and agreement of non-contact tonometry (NCT) and trans-palpebral tonometry (TPT) compared with Goldmann-applanation tonometry (GAT).
methodsA total of 224 eyes from 112 patients were included between January and April 2025. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured using GAT, NCT, and TPT. Comparison among the three measurement groups were performed using the related-samples Friedman test. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement between methods was evaluated using Bland–Altman plots and Spearman’s rank-order correlation.
resultsMedian IOP were 14 mmHg for GAT, 14 mmHg for NCT and 15 mmHg for TPT. Friedman’s ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference among three methods (χ² = 40.652, p < 0.001). TPT readings differed significantly from both GAT and NCT (p < 0.001). The difference between GAT and NCT was not significant (p = 0.024) because it did not meet the Bonferroni-adjusted threshold (α = 0.017). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.691, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The ICC for average IOP was 0.668 (95% CI: 0.571–0.743, p < 0.001), suggesting moderate reliability. Spearman’s correlation showed moderate-agreement between GAT and NCT (ρ = 0.586, p < 0.001), weak-agreement between TPT and NCT (ρ = 0.315, p < 0.001), and no correlation between GAT and TPT (ρ = 0.090, p = 0.177). Bland-Altman analysis confirmed good-agreement between GAT and NCT, fair-agreement between NCT and TPT, and poor-agreement between GAT and TPT.
conclusionsGAT and NCT showed comparatively better agreement, whereas TPT demonstrated wide limits of agreement with GAT and should not be used interchangeably for clinical decision-making; TPT may be considered only for preliminary screening when contact tonometry is not feasible.
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.