Assessing Agreement of Intraocular Pressure from Four Mechanistically Different Tonometers in the Eye Dynamics and Engineering Network Clinical Trial.

IF 3.2 Q2 Medicine
Max Liu, David M Reed, Shan Fan, Arash Kazemi, Vikas Gulati, Arthur J Sit, Sayoko E Moroi, Carol B Toris
{"title":"Assessing Agreement of Intraocular Pressure from Four Mechanistically Different Tonometers in the Eye Dynamics and Engineering Network Clinical Trial.","authors":"Max Liu, David M Reed, Shan Fan, Arash Kazemi, Vikas Gulati, Arthur J Sit, Sayoko E Moroi, Carol B Toris","doi":"10.1016/j.ogla.2025.07.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) by four mechanistically different tonometers in healthy participants from the Eye Dynamics and Engineering Network Aqueous Humor Dynamics clinical trial using the mean difference estimation, equivalence statistics, and adjusting for proparacaine's effects on IOP.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Multicenter open-label clinical trial in healthy adults (NCT01677507).</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Enrolled were 122 participants (55.2 ± 8.8 years; 92 women and 30 men), 121 of which had measurements with and without proparacaine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants from 3 sites had their IOPs measured with iCare rebound tonometer (RT), ocular response analyzer corneal-compensated (CC), pneumatonometer (PN), and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Intraocular pressure readings with RT and CC were collected with and without proparacaine.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Effect sizes and agreement in IOP measurements from the four tonometers was analyzed with Data analysis using Bootstrap-Coupled ESTimation, Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement (LoAs), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and robust equivalence two 1-sided t-tests in tandem with null hypothesis significance testing. Data analysis using bootstrap-Coupled ESTimation was used to analyze differences in IOP readings from RT and CC before and after administering proparacaine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data analysis using Bootstrap-Coupled ESTimation, LoA, and CCC showed greatest effect size and poorest agreement between PN and the other tonometers. The lowest mean difference was seen when comparing GAT and CC. However, LoA and CCC found the strongest agreement between RT and GAT. Two 1-sided tests revealed tonometers can be considered equivalent to one another at ± 2 mmHg, except for PN. After applying proparacaine, IOP decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) by RT (1.2 ± 1.9 mmHg right eye [OD]; 1.1 ± 1.7 mmHg left eye [OS]), and CC (1.4 ± 1.8 mmHg OD; 1.3 ± 2.3 mmHg OS).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When adjusted for proparacaine's effect on IOP, 3 tonometers were equivalent between each other when determined by equivalence statistical testing with equivalence bounds ± 2 mmHg. The PN reads >2 mmHg higher than RT, CC, or GAT. Therefore, when comparing IOP data from different tonometers, one should consider that not all tonometer measurements are interchangeable and the proparacaine effect should be considered.</p><p><strong>Financial disclosure(s): </strong>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.</p>","PeriodicalId":56368,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology. Glaucoma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogla.2025.07.010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP) by four mechanistically different tonometers in healthy participants from the Eye Dynamics and Engineering Network Aqueous Humor Dynamics clinical trial using the mean difference estimation, equivalence statistics, and adjusting for proparacaine's effects on IOP.

Design: Multicenter open-label clinical trial in healthy adults (NCT01677507).

Participants: Enrolled were 122 participants (55.2 ± 8.8 years; 92 women and 30 men), 121 of which had measurements with and without proparacaine.

Methods: Participants from 3 sites had their IOPs measured with iCare rebound tonometer (RT), ocular response analyzer corneal-compensated (CC), pneumatonometer (PN), and Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Intraocular pressure readings with RT and CC were collected with and without proparacaine.

Main outcome measures: Effect sizes and agreement in IOP measurements from the four tonometers was analyzed with Data analysis using Bootstrap-Coupled ESTimation, Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement (LoAs), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and robust equivalence two 1-sided t-tests in tandem with null hypothesis significance testing. Data analysis using bootstrap-Coupled ESTimation was used to analyze differences in IOP readings from RT and CC before and after administering proparacaine.

Results: Data analysis using Bootstrap-Coupled ESTimation, LoA, and CCC showed greatest effect size and poorest agreement between PN and the other tonometers. The lowest mean difference was seen when comparing GAT and CC. However, LoA and CCC found the strongest agreement between RT and GAT. Two 1-sided tests revealed tonometers can be considered equivalent to one another at ± 2 mmHg, except for PN. After applying proparacaine, IOP decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) by RT (1.2 ± 1.9 mmHg right eye [OD]; 1.1 ± 1.7 mmHg left eye [OS]), and CC (1.4 ± 1.8 mmHg OD; 1.3 ± 2.3 mmHg OS).

Conclusions: When adjusted for proparacaine's effect on IOP, 3 tonometers were equivalent between each other when determined by equivalence statistical testing with equivalence bounds ± 2 mmHg. The PN reads >2 mmHg higher than RT, CC, or GAT. Therefore, when comparing IOP data from different tonometers, one should consider that not all tonometer measurements are interchangeable and the proparacaine effect should be considered.

Financial disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

在EDEN临床试验中评估四种机械不同眼压计的眼压一致性。
目的:比较来自眼动力学和工程网络(EDEN)房水动力学(AHD)临床试验的健康受试者使用四种机械不同的眼压计测量的眼内压(IOP),采用均差估计、等效统计和调整丙帕卡因对IOP的影响。设计:健康成人多中心开放标签临床试验(NCT01677507)。受试者:纳入122名受试者(55.2±8.8 y;92名女性,30名男性),其中121人在服用和不服用丙帕卡因时进行了测量。方法:来自三个地点的参与者使用iCare™反弹眼压计(RT)、眼反应分析仪角膜补偿眼压计(CC)、气压计(PN)和Goldmann眼压计(GAT)测量眼压。使用和不使用丙帕卡因时分别收集RT和CC的IOP读数。主要结果测量:采用自举耦合估计(DABEST)、Bland-Altman协议限(LoA)、Lin’s一致性相关系数(CCC)和稳健等效性(tost -两个单侧检验)结合零假设显著性检验的数据分析,分析四种眼压计测量的效应大小和一致性。使用DABEST分析给予丙帕卡因前后RT和CC的IOP读数的差异。结果:DABEST、LoA和CCC在PN和其他眼压计之间的效应值最大,一致性最差。比较GAT和CC的平均差异最小,而LoA和CCC发现RT和GAT之间的一致性最强。除了PN外,TOST显示的眼压计在±2 mmHg时可以被认为是等效的。应用丙帕卡因后,眼压随RT(1.2±1.9 mmHg OD)显著降低(p < 0.0001);1.1±1.7 mmHg OS), CC(1.4±1.8 mmHg OD;1.3±2.3 mmHg OS)。结论:在考虑了丙帕卡因对IOP的影响后,采用等效界±2 mmHg的等效统计检验,三种眼压计之间是等效的。气压计读数比RT、CC或GAT高2mmhg以上。因此,在比较不同眼压计的IOP数据时,应考虑到并非所有眼压计的测量值都是可互换的,并应考虑丙帕卡因的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ophthalmology. Glaucoma
Ophthalmology. Glaucoma Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
140
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信