What is the best way to measure intraocular pressure (IOP) in a virtual clinic?
Journal
Eye (London, England)
ISSN: 1476-5454
Titre abrégé: Eye (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8703986
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
received:
03
04
2019
accepted:
27
03
2020
revised:
26
03
2020
pubmed:
24
4
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
24
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients with ocular hypertension (OHT) and glaucoma are increasingly reviewed in virtual clinics. As the clinician is not present during the patient's visit it is important that measurements obtained are reliable. The aim of this study was to examine agreement between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry (GAT) intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements (obtained by ophthalmologists and ophthalmic nurses) and a newer automated tonometer-the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA). A prospective study was conducted including 116 eyes of 116 patients with glaucoma and OHT. All subjects had GAT IOP obtained by a nurse and ophthalmologist and ORA IOP by a technician. The order of testing was randomised and previous measurements were masked. Agreement was examined using Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of repeat GAT and ORA measurements were calculated. Patients had a mean age of 70 ± 13 years. The 95% LoA between ophthalmologist (mean: 14.6 ± 4.3 mmHg) and nurse (mean: 15.0 ± 4.0 mmHg) GAT measurements was ±5.21 mmHg, whereas the 95% LoA between repeat ORA IOPg (mean: 13.8 ± 4.7 mmHg) was ±2.52 mmHg. There was no proportional bias. The ICC was 0.972 for repeat IOPg compared with 0.863 for repeat GAT. There was only moderate agreement between GAT IOP measurements obtained by nurses working in the virtual clinic and ophthalmologists. Agreement between ORA IOP and ophthalmologists' GAT IOP was better and ORA produced more repeatable measurements, providing evidence it may be a more reliable tool for IOP assessment in virtual clinics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patients with ocular hypertension (OHT) and glaucoma are increasingly reviewed in virtual clinics. As the clinician is not present during the patient's visit it is important that measurements obtained are reliable. The aim of this study was to examine agreement between Goldmann Applanation Tonometry (GAT) intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements (obtained by ophthalmologists and ophthalmic nurses) and a newer automated tonometer-the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA).
METHODS
A prospective study was conducted including 116 eyes of 116 patients with glaucoma and OHT. All subjects had GAT IOP obtained by a nurse and ophthalmologist and ORA IOP by a technician. The order of testing was randomised and previous measurements were masked. Agreement was examined using Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of repeat GAT and ORA measurements were calculated.
RESULTS
Patients had a mean age of 70 ± 13 years. The 95% LoA between ophthalmologist (mean: 14.6 ± 4.3 mmHg) and nurse (mean: 15.0 ± 4.0 mmHg) GAT measurements was ±5.21 mmHg, whereas the 95% LoA between repeat ORA IOPg (mean: 13.8 ± 4.7 mmHg) was ±2.52 mmHg. There was no proportional bias. The ICC was 0.972 for repeat IOPg compared with 0.863 for repeat GAT.
CONCLUSIONS
There was only moderate agreement between GAT IOP measurements obtained by nurses working in the virtual clinic and ophthalmologists. Agreement between ORA IOP and ophthalmologists' GAT IOP was better and ORA produced more repeatable measurements, providing evidence it may be a more reliable tool for IOP assessment in virtual clinics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32322017
doi: 10.1038/s41433-020-0868-2
pii: 10.1038/s41433-020-0868-2
pmc: PMC8026957
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
448-454Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Tham Y-C, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng C-Y. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:2081–90.
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.013
Kotecha A, Longstaff S, Azuara-Blanco A, Kirwan JF, Morgan JE, Spencer AF, et al. Developing standards for the development of glaucoma virtual clinics using a modified Delphi approach. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102:531–4.
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310504
Clarke J, Puertas R, Kotecha A, Foster PJ, Barton K. Virtual clinics in glaucoma care: face-to-face versus remote decision-making. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101:892–5.
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-308993
Kotecha A, Baldwin A, Brookes J, Foster PJ. Experiences with developing and implementing a virtual clinic for glaucoma care in an NHS setting. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:1915–23.
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S92409
Gunn PJG, Marks JR, Au L, Waterman H, Spry PGD, Harper RA. Acceptability and use of glaucoma virtual clinics in the UK: a national survey of clinical leads. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2018;3:e000127.
doi: 10.1136/bmjophth-2017-000127
Court JH, Austin MW. Virtual glaucoma clinics: patient acceptance and quality of patient education compared to standard clinics. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:745–9.
doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S75000
Wang AS, Alencar LM, Weinreb RN, Tafreshi A, Deokule S, Vizzeri G, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2013;22:127–32.
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3182254ba3
Dielemans I, Vingerling JR, Hofman A, Grobbee DE, de Jong PT. Reliability of intraocular pressure measurement with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in epidemiological studies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1994;232:141–4.
doi: 10.1007/BF00176782
Valero B, Fénolland J-R, Rosenberg R, Sendon D, Mesnard C, Sigaux M, et al. Reliability and reproducibility of introcular pressure (IOP) measurement with the Icare
doi: 10.1016/j.jfo.2017.06.008
Kim KN, Jeoung JW, Park KH, Yang MK, Kim DM. Comparison of the new rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in a clinical setting. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;91:e392–6.
doi: 10.1111/aos.12109
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:e66–73.
doi: 10.1111/aos.12209
Maino AP, Uddin HJ, Tullo AB. A comparison of clinical performance between disposable and Goldmann tonometers. Eye. 2006;20:574–8.
doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6701929
Tejwani S, Dinakaran S, Joshi A, Shetty R, Sinha Roy A. A cross-sectional study to compare intraocular pressure measurement by sequential use of Goldman applanation tonometry, dynamic contour tonometry, ocular response analyzer, and Corvis ST. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2015;63:815–20.
doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.171956
Grolman B, Myers KJ, Lalle P. How reliable is the Goldmann tonometer as a standard? J Am Optom Assoc. 1990;61:857–62.
pubmed: 2081830
Rüfer F. Sources of error in Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthalmologe. 2011;108:546–52.
doi: 10.1007/s00347-011-2370-5
Ragan A, Cote SL, Huang JT. Disinfection of the Goldman applanation tonometer: a systematic review. Can J Ophthalmol. 2018;53:252–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2017.09.013
Kaushik S, Pandav SS. Ocular response analyzer. J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2012;6:17–9.
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10008-1103
Reichert Technologies. Ocular Response Analyzer
Renier C, Zeyen T, Fieuws S, Vandenbroeck S, Stalmans I. Comparison of ocular response analyzer, dynamic contour tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometer. Int Ophthalmol. 2010;30:651–9.
doi: 10.1007/s10792-010-9377-9
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. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:4410–4.
doi: 10.1167/iovs.06-0158
Zareei A, Razeghinejad MR, Nowroozzadeh MH, Mehrabi Y, Aghazadeh-Amiri M. Intraocular pressure measurement by three different tonometers in primary congenital glaucoma. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2015;10:43–8.
doi: 10.4103/2008-322X.156105
Wasielica-Poslednik J, Politino G, Schmidtmann I, Lorenz K, Bell K, Pfeiffer N, et al. Influence of corneal opacity on intraocular pressure assessment in patients with lysosomal storage diseases. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0168698.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168698
Kouchaki B, Hashemi H, Yekta A, Khabazkhoob M. Comparison of current tonometry techniques in measurement of intraocular pressure. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2017;29:92–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.joco.2016.08.010
World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. JAMA 2013;310:2191.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Kotecha A, Elkarmouty A, Ajtony C, Barton K. Interobserver agreement using Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry: comparing ophthalmologists, nurses and technicians. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100:854–9.
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307219
Bland J. How can I decide the sample size for a study of agreement between two methods of measurement? University of York; 2004. http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mb55/meas/sizemeth.htm .
Ajtony C, Elkarmouty A, Barton K, Kotecha A. Applanation tonometry: interobserver and prism agreement using the reusable Goldmann applanation prism and the Tonosafe disposable prism. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100:848–53.
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307240
Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E, et al. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:48–56.
doi: 10.1001/archopht.121.1.48
Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:714–20.
doi: 10.1001/archopht.120.6.714
Medeiros FA, Weinreb RN. Evaluation of the influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurements using the ocular response analyzer. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:364–70.
doi: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000212268.42606.97
Lascaratos G, Garway-Heath DF, Russell RA, Crabb DP, Zhu H, Hirn C, et al. Intraocular pressure (IOP) measured with the ocular response analyzer is a better predictor of glaucoma progression than Goldmann IOP in the United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study (UKGTS). Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:128.