Clinical Evaluation of the New Rebound Tonometers Icare PRO and Icare ONE Compared With the Goldmann Tonometer.
Moreno-Montañés Javier, Martínez-de-la-Casa José M, Sabater Alfonso L, Morales-Fernandez Laura, Sáenz Cristina, Garcia-Feijoo Julián
AI Summary
This study compared Icare ONE (patient-used) and Icare PRO (clinician-used) rebound tonometers to Goldmann tonometry. Icare PRO was more accurate across IOP ranges, but Icare ONE shows promise for patient self-monitoring after training.
Abstract
Purpose
To compare the participant-obtained intraocular pressures (IOPs) using Icare ONE and the clinician-obtained values using Icare PRO, both rebound tonometers, with Goldmann tonometry (GAT) values and analyze the ease of use of Icare ONE.
Methods
One hundred fifty participants were included (60 normal controls, 90 patients with glaucoma/ocular hypertension). The participants measured the IOP 3 times using Icare ONE; a clinician measured the IOP once using Icare PRO. The instruments were used randomly. Clinical data were evaluated to analyze the difficulty of the technique, the effect on the results, and the ease of use of Icare ONE.
Results
The mean IOPs with GAT, Icare ONE, and Icare PRO were 16.6±4.43, 17.5±5.42, and 16.6±4.77 mm Hg, respectively. The participant-measured IOP values were within +3 mm Hg of the GAT values in 67.1% of eyes with Icare ONE and in 79.6% with Icare PRO. The limits of agreement were higher with Icare ONE compared with Icare PRO. IOP value errors were found with Icare ONE in eyes with low and high GAT-IOP. The areas under the curve to detect IOPs of 21 mm Hg or higher (GAT) exceeded 0.80 with both tonometers. Young participants reported better ease of use with Icare ONE. No other factors were related to the results.
Conclusions
Icare ONE may be useful for patients monitoring their IOP values; most individuals can use the device after a short training session. Icare PRO had better results compared with Icare ONE in all IOP ranges.
MeSH Terms
Shields Classification
Key Concepts6
The mean intraocular pressures (IOPs) measured with Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), Icare ONE (participant-obtained), and Icare PRO (clinician-obtained) were 16.6±4.43 mm Hg, 17.5±5.42 mm Hg, and 16.6±4.77 mm Hg, respectively, in a study of 150 participants (60 normal controls, 90 patients with glaucoma/ocular hypertension).
Participant-measured intraocular pressure (IOP) values using Icare ONE were within +3 mm Hg of Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) values in 67.1% of eyes, while clinician-measured IOP values using Icare PRO were within +3 mm Hg of GAT values in 79.6% of eyes, in a study of 150 participants.
The limits of agreement were higher with Icare ONE compared with Icare PRO when compared to Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in a study involving 150 participants.
Intraocular pressure (IOP) value errors were found with Icare ONE in eyes with low and high Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT)-IOP in a study comparing tonometers in 150 participants.
The areas under the curve to detect intraocular pressures (IOPs) of 21 mm Hg or higher (Goldmann applanation tonometry) exceeded 0.80 with both Icare ONE and Icare PRO tonometers in a study of 150 participants.
Icare PRO had better results compared with Icare ONE across all intraocular pressure (IOP) ranges in a clinical evaluation comparing both rebound tonometers with Goldmann tonometry in 150 participants.
Related Articles5
Development and Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Model to Set Target IOP for Glaucoma.
Observational StudyThe relationship between intraocular pressure and glaucoma: An evolving concept.
ReviewLong-term Safety and Performance of a Suprachoroidal Pressure Sensor System: Results of the EYEMATE-SC Trial Follow-up Study.
Clinical TrialGlaucoma Home Self-Testing Using VR Visual Fields and Rebound Tonometry Versus In-Clinic Perimetry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry: A Pilot Study.
Clinical TrialContinuous 24-hour intraocular pressure monitoring in normal Chinese adults using a novel contact lens sensor system.
Observational StudyIs this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.