Comparison of handheld rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in children with glaucoma: a cohort study

Comparison of handheld rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in children with glaucoma: a cohort study

Objective To test agreement of two methods to measure intraocular pressure (IOP): rebound tonometry (RBT) and gold standard Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in children with glaucoma.Design Observational prospective cohort study.Setting Tertiary paediatric glaucoma clinic at a single centre.Part...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Catey Bunce, Peng Tee Khaw, John Brookes, Maria Papadopoulos, Amanda Lewis, Poornima Rai, Renata Puertas, Annegret Hella Dahlmann-Noor, Shenille Tabasa-Lim, Ahmed El-Karmouty, Mustafa Kadhim, Nicholas Kloster Wride, Dawn Grosvenor
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2013-04-01
Series:BMJ Open
Online Access:https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/4/e001788.full
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective To test agreement of two methods to measure intraocular pressure (IOP): rebound tonometry (RBT) and gold standard Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) in children with glaucoma.Design Observational prospective cohort study.Setting Tertiary paediatric glaucoma clinic at a single centre.Participants 102 individuals attending a paediatric glaucoma clinic, mean (SD) age 11.85 (3.17), of whom 53 were male.Primary and secondary outcome measures Intraocular pressure, central corneal thickness, child preference for measurement method.Results Limits of agreement for intraobserver and interobserver were, respectively, (−2.71, 2.98) mm Hg and (−5.75, 5.97) mm Hg. RBT frequently gave higher readings than GAT and the magnitude of disagreement depend on the level of IOP being assessed. Differences of 10 mm Hg were not uncommon. RBT was the preferred method for 70% of children.Conclusions There is poor agreement between RBT and GAT in children with glaucoma. RBT frequently and significantly overestimates IOP. However, ‘normal’ RBT readings are likely to be accurate and may spare children an examination under anaesthesia (EUA). High RBT readings should prompt the practitioner to use another standard method of IOP measurement if possible, or consider the RBT measurement in the context of clinical findings before referring the child to a specialist clinic or considering EUA.
ISSN:2044-6055

Similar Items