Premium
Diaton tonometry: an assessment of validity and preference against Goldmann tonometry
Author(s) -
Doherty Mark D,
Carrim Zia I,
O'Neill Damian P
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
clinical and experimental ophthalmology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.3
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1442-9071
pISSN - 1442-6404
DOI - 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2011.02636.x
Subject(s) - medicine , intraocular pressure , ophthalmology , applanation tonometry , goldmann applanation tonometer , limits of agreement , optometry , blood pressure , arterial stiffness , nuclear medicine
A bstract Background: To assess agreement between the Diaton, a new transpalpebral tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometry, the accepted gold standard. Design: Comparative study of two devices in a hospital setting. Participants: Two hundred and fifty‐one patients attending the eye casualty and general ophthalmology clinics at St James' University Hospital, Leeds between February and December 2009. Methods: Intraocular pressure was measured using Goldmann applanation tonometry and Diaton tonometry by one examining ophthalmologist. Patient preference for either technique was also recorded. Main Outcome Measures: Intraocular pressure measured by Diaton was compared with intraocular pressure measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry. Limits of agreement were determined using the Bland‐Altman method. Results: Two hundred and fifty right eyes underwent both Goldmann applanation tonometry and Diaton tonometry. Mean intraocular pressure was 13.8 ± 3.6 mmHg using Goldmann applanation tonometry and 13.2 ± 4.3 mmHg using Diaton tonometry. Upper and lower limits of agreement were +8.4 mmHg and −9.6 mmHg, respectively. Order of intraocular pressure measurement and positioning did not influence limits of agreement in a clinically significant manner. Overall, more patients expressed preference for Diaton tonometry (40.2%) than Goldmann applanation tonometry (30.3%). Those aged 50 or less were more likely to prefer Diaton tonometry. Conclusions: The Diaton tonometer is portable, lightweight, user‐friendly and well tolerated by patients. However, it shows poor agreement with Goldmann applanation tonometry, thereby precluding it from being regarded as a substitute in routine clinical practice.