Clinical Comparison of the Proview Eye Pressure Monitor With the GoldmannApplanation Tonometer and the TonoPen | Glaucoma | JAMA Ophthalmology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Wilensky  JT Diurnal variations in intraocular pressure.  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1991;89757- 790PubMedGoogle Scholar
David  RZangwill  LBriscoe  DDagan  MYagev  RYassur  Y Diurnal intraocular pressure variations.  Br J Ophthalmol. 1992;76280- 283PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Zeimer  RCWilensky  JTGieser  DKViana  MA Association between intraocular pressure peaks and progression of visualfield loss.  Ophthalmology. 1991;9864- 69PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Asrani  SZeimer  RWilensky  JGieser  DVitale  SLindenmuth  K Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independentrisk factor in patients with glaucoma.  J Glaucoma. 2000;9134- 142PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Perkins  ES Hand-held applanation tonometer.  Br J Ophthalmol. 1965;49591- 593PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Frenkel  RPHong  YJShin  DH Comparison of the Tono-Pen to the Goldmann application tonometer.  Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106750- 753PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Zeimer  RCWilensky  JTGieser  DKMori  MMBaker  JP Evaluation of a self tonometer for home use.  Arch Ophthalmol. 1983;1011791- 1793PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kothy  PVargha  PHollo  G Ocuton-S self tonometry vs Goldmann tonometry: a diurnal comparisonstudy.  Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2001;79294- 297PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Pandav  SSSharma  AGupta  ASharma  SKGupta  APatnaik  B Reliability of ProTon and Goldmann application tonometer in normaland postkeratoplasty eyes.  Ophthalmology. 2002;109979- 984PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Fresco  BB A new tonometer—the pressure phosphene tonometer: clinical comparisonwith Goldmann tonometry.  Ophthalmology. 1998;1052123- 2126PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Brindley  GS The site of electrical excitation of the human eye.  J Physiol. 1955;127189- 200PubMedGoogle Scholar
Gallance  SAFechtner  RDRealini  AD  et al.  Clinical comparison of the Proview eye pressure monitor with Goldmannapplanation tonometry in healthy eyes [ARVO abstract].  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43supplProgram 1067Google Scholar
Naruse  SMori  KKojo  MHieda  OKinoshita  S Evaluation of intraocular pressure change after laser in situ keratomileusisusing pressure phosphene tonometer [ARVO abstract].  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43supplProgram 2114Google Scholar
Recep  OFHasiripi  HVayisoglu  EKalayci  DSarikatipoglu  H Accurate time interval in repeated tonometry.  Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1998;76603- 605PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Herndon  LWChoudhri  SACox  TDamji  KFShields  MBAllingham  RR Central corneal thickness in normal, glaucomatous, and ocular hypertensiveeyes.  Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;1151137- 1141PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Doughty  MJZaman  ML Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measurements.  Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;44367- 408PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Brandt  JDBeiser  JAKass  MAGordon  MO Central corneal thickness in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study(OHTS).  Ophthalmology. 2001;1081779- 1788PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Bhan  ABrowning  ACShah  SHamilton  RDave  DDua  HS Effect of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurements withthe pneumotonometer, Goldmann applanation tonometer, and Tono-Pen.  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;431389- 1392PubMedGoogle Scholar
Dohadwala  AAMunger  RDamji  KF Positive correlation between Tono-Pen intraocular pressure and centralcorneal thickness.  Ophthalmology. 1998;1051849- 1854PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Mok  KHWong  CSLee  VW Tono-Pen tonometer and corneal thickness.  Eye. 1999;1335- 37PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Feltgen  NLeifert  DFunk  J Correlation between central corneal thickness, applanation tonometry,and direct intracameral IOP readings.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;8585- 87PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Foster  PJBaasanhu  JAlsbirk  PHMunkhbayar  DUranchimeg  DJohnson  GJ Central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure in a Mongolian population.  Ophthalmology. 1998;105969- 973PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Thomas  GAMarchetto  PGreene  RFechtner  RD Mechanical analysis of a patient-operated tonometer [ARVO abstract].  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43supplProgram 3426Google Scholar
Clinical Sciences
August 2004

Clinical Comparison of the Proview Eye Pressure Monitor With the GoldmannApplanation Tonometer and the TonoPen

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Ophthalmology, University of South CarolinaSchool of Medicine, Columbia (Dr Li); and Departments of Ophthalmology (DrsHerndon, Asrani, Stinnett, and Allingham) and Biostatistics and Bioinformatics(Dr Stinnett), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. The authors haveno relevant financial interest in this article.

Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(8):1117-1121. doi:10.1001/archopht.122.8.1117

Objective  To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) values obtained by patients usingthe new Proview eye pressure monitor (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) withthose measured with the Goldmann tonometer and the TonoPen (Mentor, Norwell,Mass).

Methods  Eighty-six patients (a total of 171 eyes) with a diagnosis of glaucomaor glaucoma suspect successfully completed the study. The IOP was measuredby 3 methods in the following order: Goldmann tonometer, TonoPen, and Provieweye pressure monitor. The central corneal thickness was measured by an ultrasonicpachymeter. Separately for each eye, the differences in mean IOP values betweenmeasurement methods were assessed with paired t testsand also in multivariate models that tested the dependence of IOP differenceon central corneal thickness.

Results  There was a significant difference (P<.001)in the mean IOPs measured by the 3 different methods (Goldmann vs Proview,Goldmann vs TonoPen, and TonoPen vs Proview) for both eyes, and the differencewas independent of the central corneal thickness. The differences betweenIOP measured by Goldmann and Proview were similar in all categories of patient-reportedease of using the Proview.

Conclusions  The IOPs obtained with the Proview eye pressure monitor are significantlylower than those measured with Goldmann tonometer and the TonoPen, and variationsof the central corneal thickness do not contribute to the difference. Intraclasscorrelations of IOP values obtained with the Goldmann and the Proview or TonoPenand Proview are not strong. On the other hand, as expected, measurements withGoldmann and TonoPen agreed fairly well.