The Experts below are selected from a list of 294 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Yoshiaki Kiuchi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparison of the Intraocular Pressure Measured Using the New Rebound Tonometer Icare ic100 and Icare TA01i or Goldmann Applanation Tonometer.
Journal of glaucoma, 2019Co-Authors: Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Etsuko Mori, Yuki Fujio, Yasuko Fujisawa, Kanae Matsuya, Yui Kobayashi, Ryo Asaoka, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Purpose:We evaluated the agreement between the intraocular pressure (IOP) values of new rebound Tonometer, Icare ic100, and Icare TA01i or Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT).Methods:We studied one eye each of 106 subjects (57 with primary open-angle glaucoma, 49 healthy subjects). IOP was randomly
-
Agreement among Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, iCare, and Icare PRO rebound Tonometers; non-contact Tonometer; and Tonopen XL in healthy elderly subjects
International ophthalmology, 2017Co-Authors: Yoshitake Kato, Shunsuke Nakakura, Naoko Matsuo, Kayo Yoshitomi, Marina Handa, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Purpose To evaluate the inter-device agreement among the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT), iCare and Icare PRO rebound Tonometers, non-contact Tonometer (NCT), and Tonopen XL Tonometer.
Ingeborg Stalmans - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour Tonometer and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer
International Ophthalmology, 2010Co-Authors: Charlotte Renier, Thierry Zeyen, Steffen Fieuws, Sofie Vandenbroeck, Ingeborg StalmansAbstract:The aim of this study was to compare the intra-ocular pressure (IOP) obtained by ocular response analyzer (ORA), dynamic contour Tonometer (DCT) and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT). In 102 patients (47 with primary open-angle glaucoma and 55 healthy controls) IOP was measured with GAT, ORA and DCT in one eye. The agreement between GAT, DCT and ORA values was assessed using Bland–Altman plots. The discrepancy between the methods was related to central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) using linear regression models. Significant differences were observed amongst DCT, corneal compensated ORA (ORAcc) and GAT ( P
-
Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour Tonometer and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer
International ophthalmology, 2010Co-Authors: Charlotte Renier, Thierry Zeyen, Steffen Fieuws, Sofie Vandenbroeck, Ingeborg StalmansAbstract:The aim of this study was to compare the intra-ocular pressure (IOP) obtained by ocular response analyzer (ORA), dynamic contour Tonometer (DCT) and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT). In 102 patients (47 with primary open-angle glaucoma and 55 healthy controls) IOP was measured with GAT, ORA and DCT in one eye. The agreement between GAT, DCT and ORA values was assessed using Bland–Altman plots. The discrepancy between the methods was related to central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) using linear regression models. Significant differences were observed amongst DCT, corneal compensated ORA (ORAcc) and GAT (P < 0.01). Only the ORAcc and DCT were comparable. ORAcc and DCT significantly over-estimated IOP compared to GAT and for ORAcc this difference depended on the height of IOP. A significant correlation was found between CCT and the deviation of DCT and ORAcc from corrected GAT (both P < 0.0001). Our study showed a low degree of agreement between IOP measured by ORA, DCT and GAT. DCT and ORAcc over-estimated the IOP compared to GAT.
-
comparison of icare dynamic contour Tonometer and ocular response analyzer with goldmann Applanation Tonometer
Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica, 2007Co-Authors: Evelien Vandewalle, Ingeborg Stalmans, Sofie Vandenbroeck, Thierry ZeyenAbstract:Purpose: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) readings taken with the ICare Tonometer, the Pascal Dynamic Contour Tonometer (DCT), and the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) with the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT). To evaluate the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) on the IOP measurements. Methods: In a prospective study 93 eyes of 93 patients attending the glaucoma clinic were examined. Patients were randomly divided into four groups to vary the order in which the Tonometers were applied. CCT was measured with an ultrasound pachymeter (Pachmate). A multivariate normal model was used to compare the mean IOP measurements between the four instruments. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the correlation between IOP measurements and CCT. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between the tonometry methods. Results: The average CCT was 558 ±47.4 μm. The mean IOP for GAT, ICare, DCT, and ORA (Goldmann correlated IOP) were 15.1 ±4.8, 15.7 ±5.7, 18.3 ±5.1, and 18.3 ±6.6 mmHg respectively. There was no significant difference between the mean IOP obtained with GAT and ICare (p=0.44), nor between DCT and ORA (p=0.99). There was no correlation between the IOP measurements and CCT for the four instruments. Bland-Altman graphs show disagreement between the measurements taken by the four Tonometers. Conclusions: IOP readings from ICare are in accordance with those from GAT, whereas DCT readings correspond well to (Goldmann correlated) ORA measurements. DCT and ORA readings both overestimate IOP measured with GAT.
Shunsuke Nakakura - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparison of the Intraocular Pressure Measured Using the New Rebound Tonometer Icare ic100 and Icare TA01i or Goldmann Applanation Tonometer.
Journal of glaucoma, 2019Co-Authors: Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Etsuko Mori, Yuki Fujio, Yasuko Fujisawa, Kanae Matsuya, Yui Kobayashi, Ryo Asaoka, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Purpose:We evaluated the agreement between the intraocular pressure (IOP) values of new rebound Tonometer, Icare ic100, and Icare TA01i or Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT).Methods:We studied one eye each of 106 subjects (57 with primary open-angle glaucoma, 49 healthy subjects). IOP was randomly
-
Agreement among Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, iCare, and Icare PRO rebound Tonometers; non-contact Tonometer; and Tonopen XL in healthy elderly subjects
International ophthalmology, 2017Co-Authors: Yoshitake Kato, Shunsuke Nakakura, Naoko Matsuo, Kayo Yoshitomi, Marina Handa, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Purpose To evaluate the inter-device agreement among the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT), iCare and Icare PRO rebound Tonometers, non-contact Tonometer (NCT), and Tonopen XL Tonometer.
Hitoshi Tabuchi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparison of the Intraocular Pressure Measured Using the New Rebound Tonometer Icare ic100 and Icare TA01i or Goldmann Applanation Tonometer.
Journal of glaucoma, 2019Co-Authors: Shunsuke Nakakura, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Etsuko Mori, Yuki Fujio, Yasuko Fujisawa, Kanae Matsuya, Yui Kobayashi, Ryo Asaoka, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Purpose:We evaluated the agreement between the intraocular pressure (IOP) values of new rebound Tonometer, Icare ic100, and Icare TA01i or Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT).Methods:We studied one eye each of 106 subjects (57 with primary open-angle glaucoma, 49 healthy subjects). IOP was randomly
-
Agreement among Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, iCare, and Icare PRO rebound Tonometers; non-contact Tonometer; and Tonopen XL in healthy elderly subjects
International ophthalmology, 2017Co-Authors: Yoshitake Kato, Shunsuke Nakakura, Naoko Matsuo, Kayo Yoshitomi, Marina Handa, Hitoshi Tabuchi, Yoshiaki KiuchiAbstract:Purpose To evaluate the inter-device agreement among the Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT), iCare and Icare PRO rebound Tonometers, non-contact Tonometer (NCT), and Tonopen XL Tonometer.
Charlotte Renier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour Tonometer and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer
International Ophthalmology, 2010Co-Authors: Charlotte Renier, Thierry Zeyen, Steffen Fieuws, Sofie Vandenbroeck, Ingeborg StalmansAbstract:The aim of this study was to compare the intra-ocular pressure (IOP) obtained by ocular response analyzer (ORA), dynamic contour Tonometer (DCT) and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT). In 102 patients (47 with primary open-angle glaucoma and 55 healthy controls) IOP was measured with GAT, ORA and DCT in one eye. The agreement between GAT, DCT and ORA values was assessed using Bland–Altman plots. The discrepancy between the methods was related to central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) using linear regression models. Significant differences were observed amongst DCT, corneal compensated ORA (ORAcc) and GAT ( P
-
Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour Tonometer and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer
International ophthalmology, 2010Co-Authors: Charlotte Renier, Thierry Zeyen, Steffen Fieuws, Sofie Vandenbroeck, Ingeborg StalmansAbstract:The aim of this study was to compare the intra-ocular pressure (IOP) obtained by ocular response analyzer (ORA), dynamic contour Tonometer (DCT) and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT). In 102 patients (47 with primary open-angle glaucoma and 55 healthy controls) IOP was measured with GAT, ORA and DCT in one eye. The agreement between GAT, DCT and ORA values was assessed using Bland–Altman plots. The discrepancy between the methods was related to central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) using linear regression models. Significant differences were observed amongst DCT, corneal compensated ORA (ORAcc) and GAT (P < 0.01). Only the ORAcc and DCT were comparable. ORAcc and DCT significantly over-estimated IOP compared to GAT and for ORAcc this difference depended on the height of IOP. A significant correlation was found between CCT and the deviation of DCT and ORAcc from corrected GAT (both P < 0.0001). Our study showed a low degree of agreement between IOP measured by ORA, DCT and GAT. DCT and ORAcc over-estimated the IOP compared to GAT.