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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| 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!
|
| _version_ | 1823858344063926272 |
|---|---|
| author | 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 |
| author_facet | 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 |
| author_sort | Catey Bunce |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-71b5c7bca6424fe58a41fb2832d5404b |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2013-04-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-71b5c7bca6424fe58a41fb2832d5404b2025-02-11T11:50:12ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552013-04-013410.1136/bmjopen-2012-001788Comparison of handheld rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in children with glaucoma: a cohort studyCatey Bunce0Peng Tee Khaw1John Brookes2Maria Papadopoulos3Amanda Lewis4Poornima Rai5Renata Puertas6Annegret Hella Dahlmann-Noor7Shenille Tabasa-Lim8Ahmed El-Karmouty9Mustafa Kadhim10Nicholas Kloster Wride11Dawn Grosvenor129 RM CTU, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK1 University College London Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UKDepartment of Paediatric Ophthalmology, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UKGlaucoma, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UKGlaucoma, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UKGlaucoma, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK1Glaucoma Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital London, London, UK1 Children`s Clinical Trials Unit, NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, London, UKDepartment of Paediatric Ophthalmology, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UKGlaucoma, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UKDepartment of Paediatric Ophthalmology, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UKGlaucoma, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UKGlaucoma, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UKObjective 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.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/4/e001788.full |
| spellingShingle | 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 Comparison of handheld rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in children with glaucoma: a cohort study BMJ Open |
| title | Comparison of handheld rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in children with glaucoma: a cohort study |
| title_full | Comparison of handheld rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in children with glaucoma: a cohort study |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of handheld rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in children with glaucoma: a cohort study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of handheld rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in children with glaucoma: a cohort study |
| title_short | Comparison of handheld rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in children with glaucoma: a cohort study |
| title_sort | comparison of handheld rebound tonometry with goldmann applanation tonometry in children with glaucoma a cohort study |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/4/e001788.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT cateybunce comparisonofhandheldreboundtonometrywithgoldmannapplanationtonometryinchildrenwithglaucomaacohortstudy AT pengteekhaw comparisonofhandheldreboundtonometrywithgoldmannapplanationtonometryinchildrenwithglaucomaacohortstudy AT johnbrookes comparisonofhandheldreboundtonometrywithgoldmannapplanationtonometryinchildrenwithglaucomaacohortstudy AT mariapapadopoulos comparisonofhandheldreboundtonometrywithgoldmannapplanationtonometryinchildrenwithglaucomaacohortstudy AT amandalewis comparisonofhandheldreboundtonometrywithgoldmannapplanationtonometryinchildrenwithglaucomaacohortstudy AT poornimarai comparisonofhandheldreboundtonometrywithgoldmannapplanationtonometryinchildrenwithglaucomaacohortstudy AT renatapuertas comparisonofhandheldreboundtonometrywithgoldmannapplanationtonometryinchildrenwithglaucomaacohortstudy AT annegrethelladahlmannnoor comparisonofhandheldreboundtonometrywithgoldmannapplanationtonometryinchildrenwithglaucomaacohortstudy AT shenilletabasalim comparisonofhandheldreboundtonometrywithgoldmannapplanationtonometryinchildrenwithglaucomaacohortstudy AT ahmedelkarmouty comparisonofhandheldreboundtonometrywithgoldmannapplanationtonometryinchildrenwithglaucomaacohortstudy AT mustafakadhim comparisonofhandheldreboundtonometrywithgoldmannapplanationtonometryinchildrenwithglaucomaacohortstudy AT nicholasklosterwride comparisonofhandheldreboundtonometrywithgoldmannapplanationtonometryinchildrenwithglaucomaacohortstudy AT dawngrosvenor comparisonofhandheldreboundtonometrywithgoldmannapplanationtonometryinchildrenwithglaucomaacohortstudy |