Biomechanically-Corrected Intraocular Pressure Compared To Pressure Measured With Commonly Used Tonometers In Normal Subjects

References

• Bao F, Deng M, Wang Q, et al. Evaluation of the relationship of corneal biomechanical metrics with physical intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness in ex vivo rabbit eye globes. Exp Eye Res. 2015;137:11–17. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2015.05.01826026878
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;44(5):367–408.10734239
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bao F, Huang Z, Huang J, et al. Clinical evaluation of methods to correct intraocular pressure measurements by the Goldmann applanation tonometer, ocular response analyzer, and Corvis ST tonometer for the effects of corneal stiffness parameters. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(6):510–519. doi:10.1097/IJG.000000000000035926709500
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Fernandez-Vidal A, Mendez-Hernandez C, Garcia-Sanchez J. Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(10):4410–4414. doi:10.1167/iovs.06-015817003433
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayoumi NH, Bessa AS, El Massry AA. Ocular response analyzer and goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study of findings. J Glaucoma. 2010;19(9):627–631. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181ca7e0120179628
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong J, Xu J, Wei A, et al. A new tonometer–the Corvis ST tonometer: clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(1):659–665. doi:10.1167/iovs.12-1098423307970
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamper RL. A history of intraocular pressure and its measurement. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88(1):E16–E28. doi:10.1097/OPX.0b013e318205a4e721150677
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Brusini P. Repeatability and accuracy of applanation resonance tonometry in healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(1):e66–e73. doi:10.1111/aos.1220923837834
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsheikh A, Alhasso D, Gunvant P, Garway-Heath D. Multiparameter correction equation for Goldmann applanation tonometry. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88(1):E102–e112. doi:10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181fc345321037494
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aziz K, Friedman DS. Tonometers—which one should I use? Eye. 2018;32(5)931–937.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huseynova T, Waring GO, Roberts C, Krueger RR, Tomita M. Corneal biomechanics as a function of intraocular pressure and pachymetry by dynamic infrared signal and Scheimpflug imaging analysis in normal eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(4):885–893. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.12.02424388837
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reznicek L, Muth D, Kampik A, Neubauer AS, Hirneiss C. Evaluation of a novel Scheimpflug-based non-contact tonometer in healthy subjects and patients with ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97(11):1410–1414. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-30340023969314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chui WS, Lam A, Chen D, Chiu R. The influence of corneal properties on rebound tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(1):80–84. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.06117573114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Castillo A, Garcia-Sanchez J. Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(12):4578–4580. doi:10.1167/iovs.05-058616303951
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suman S, Agrawal A, Pal VK, Pratap VB. Rebound tonometer: ideal tonometer for measurement of accurate intraocular pressure. J Glaucoma. 2014;23(9):633–637. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e318285fefd23429611
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinero DP, Alcon N. In vivo characterization of corneal biomechanics. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40(6):870–887. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.03.02124857436
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen KJ, Joda A, Vinciguerra R, et al. Clinical evaluation of a new correction algorithm for dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer tonometry before and after laser in situ keratomileusis and small-incision lenticule extraction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44(5):581–588. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.01.02329685776
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hugo J, Granget E, Ho Wang Yin G, Sampo M, Hoffart L. Intraocular pressure measurements and corneal biomechanical properties using a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer, after several keratoplasty techniques, versus normal eyes. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2018;41(1):30–38. doi:10.1016/j.jfo.2017.06.00629191679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee H, Roberts CJ, Ambrosio R Jr., Elsheikh A, Kang DSY, Kim TI. Effect of accelerated corneal crosslinking combined with transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy on dynamic corneal response parameters and biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure measured with a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer in healthy myopic patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(7):937–945. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.04.03628823441
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee H, Roberts CJ, Kim TI, Ambrosio R Jr., Elsheikh A, Yong Kang DS. Changes in biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure and dynamic corneal response parameters before and after transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy and femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43(12):1495–1503. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.01929335093
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliasy A, Chen KJ, Vinciguerra R, et al. Ex-vivo experimental validation of biomechanically-corrected intraocular pressure measurements on human eyes using the CorVis ST. Exp Eye Res. 2018;175:98–102. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2018.06.01329908883
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson TV, Toris CB, Fan S, Camras CB. Effects of central corneal thickness on the efficacy of topical ocular hypotensive medications. J Glaucoma. 2008;17(2):89–99. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e31814b993818344753
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morales-Fernandez L, Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Saenz-Frances F, Santos-Bueso E, Garcia-Sanchez J. Reproducibility of the new Goldmann AT900D digital tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2012;21(3):186–188. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e31820bd1e921423040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan-Mee M, Gerhardt G, Halverson KD, Qualls C. Repeatability and reproducibility for intraocular pressure measurement by dynamic contour, ocular response analyzer, and goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2009;18(9):666–673. doi:10.1097/IJG.0b013e31819c487d20010245
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaoeda K, Fukushima A, Shirakashi M, Fukuchi T. Comparison of intraocular pressure adjusted by central corneal thickness or corneal biomechanical properties as measured in glaucomatous eyes using noncontact tonometers and the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:829–834. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S10683627274187
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grippo TM, Liu JH, Zebardast N, Arnold TB, Moore GH, Weinreb RN. Twenty-four-hour pattern of intraocular pressure in untreated patients with ocular hypertension. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(1):512–517. doi:10.1167/iovs.12-1070923211815
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bang SP, Lee CE, Kim YC. Comparison of intraocular pressure as measured by three different non-contact tonometers and goldmann applanation tonometer for non-glaucomatous subjects. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17(1):199. doi:10.1186/s12886-017-0593-129096616
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–310.2868172
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Portney LGWM. Foundations of Clinical Research. Applications to Practice. 2ed ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Health; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts CJ, Mahmoud AM, Bons JP, et al. Introduction of two novel stiffness parameters and interpretation of air puff-induced biomechanical deformation parameters with a dynamic scheimpflug analyzer. J Refract Surg. 2017;33(4):266–273. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20161221-0328407167
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joda AA, Shervin MM, Kook D, Elsheikh A. Development and validation of a correction equation for Corvis tonometry. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2016;19(9):943–953.27049961
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinciguerra R, Elsheikh A, Roberts CJ, et al. Influence of pachymetry and intraocular pressure on dynamic corneal response parameters in healthy patients. J Refract Surg. 2016;32(8):550–561. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20160524-0127505316
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunvant P, Baskaran M, Vijaya L, et al. Effect of corneal parameters on measurements using the pulsatile ocular blood flow tonograph and Goldmann applanation tonometer. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(4):518–522. doi:10.1136/bjo.2003.01933115031169
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(1):48–56. doi:10.1001/archopht.121.1.4812523884
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tonnu PA, Ho T, Newson T, et al. The influence of central corneal thickness and age on intraocular pressure measured by pneumotonometry, non-contact tonometry, the Tono-Pen XL, and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(7):851–854. doi:10.1136/bjo.2004.05662215965165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopes BT, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of intraocular pressure and dynamic corneal response parameters assessed by the Corvis ST. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:8515742.28676837
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar