ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Validation of Automated Fixed Force Applanation Tonometry.
Article in Ophthalmology science, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To validate fixed force applanation tonometry against traditional Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and compare interuser reproducibility. Design: Prospective cross-sectional pilot study. Subjects: Patients presenting for their routine eye care at an academic glaucoma practice. Methods: A prototype adaptor containing a camera was attached to the Goldmann tonometer of a standard slitlamp microscope set to a fixed force in conjunction with a custom tonometer tip. Recorded applanation mires were converted to an intraocular pressure (IOP) using the Imbert-Fick formula. Standard GAT was also performed. Clinical GAT, research GAT, and prototype IOP measurements among different users were also completed. Main Outcome Measures: Goldmann applanation tonometry and prototype IOPs were compared in a pilot validation study, and interuser reproducibility was assessed using the 2 devices. Results: In the validation study, 100 eyes from 50 subjects were included. The mean difference between the prototype and standard GAT measurements was +1.0 mmHg, with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of -3.4 to 5.5 mmHg. The mean absolute difference (± standard deviation) between the prototype IOP and the standard GAT measurement was 1.9 ± 1.5 mmHg. In the reproducibility study, 42 eyes from 21 subjects were included. The mean difference between the research technician prototype IOP and the ophthalmologist prototype IOP measurements was 0.01 mmHg with LoA of -2.5 to 2.4 mmHg. The mean absolute difference between users was significantly lower when using the prototype compared with standard GAT (0.9 ± 1.2 mmHg vs. 1.6 ± 1.1 mmHg, Conclusions: Preliminary measurements using a fixed force applanation tonometry method demonstrated comparable results with standard GAT with improved interuser reproducibility. Financial Disclosures: The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
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.