Relevant bibliographies by topics / Rebound tonometri / Journal articles
To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Rebound tonometri.

Journal articles on the topic 'Rebound tonometri'

Author: Grafiati
Published: 4 June 2021
Last updated: 11 February 2022

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Rebound tonometri.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

Cvenkel, Barbara, Makedonka Atanasovska Velkovska, and Vesna Dimovska Jordanova. "Self-measurement with Icare HOME tonometer, patients’ feasibility and acceptability." European Journal of Ophthalmology 30, no. 2 (2019): 258–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1120672118823124.

Full text
Abstract:
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of self-measurement of intraocular pressure using Icare Home rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer and assess acceptability of self-tonometry in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Methods: In the study, 117 subjects were trained to use Icare Home for self-measurement. Icare Home tonometer readings were compared with Goldmann applanation tonometer, including one eye per patient. Agreement between the two methods of measurement was evaluated by Bland and Altmann analysis. Questionnaire was used to evaluate patients’ perception of self-tonometry. Results: One hundred and three out of 117 patients (88%) were able to measure their own intraocular pressure and 96 (82%) fulfilled the requirements for certification. The mean (SD) difference Goldmann applanation tonometer minus Icare Home was 1.2 (2.4) mmHg (95% limits of agreement, –3.4 to 5.9 mmHg). The magnitude of bias between the two methods depended on central corneal thickness, with greater bias at central corneal thickness <500 µm. In 65 out of 96 subjects (67.7%), Icare Home results were within 2 mmHg of the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Seventy-three out of 93 (78.5%) felt that self-tonometry was easy to use and 75 patients (80.6%) responded that they would use the device at home. Conclusion: Icare Home tonometry tends to slightly underestimate intraocular pressure compared to Goldmann applanation tonometer. Most patients were able to perform self-tonometry and found it acceptable for home use. Measurements using rebound self-tonometry could improve the quality of intraocular pressure data and optimize treatment regimen.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Molero-Senosiaín, Mercedes, Laura Morales-Fernández, Federico Saenz-Francés, Julian García-Feijoo, and Jose María Martínez-de-la-Casa. "Analysis of reproducibility, evaluation, and preference of the new iC100 rebound tonometer versus iCare PRO and Perkins portable applanation tonometry." European Journal of Ophthalmology 30, no. 6 (2019): 1349–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1120672119878017.

Full text
Abstract:
Objectives: To analyze the reproducibility of the new iC100 rebound tonometer, to compare its results with the applanation tonometry and iCare PRO and to evaluate the preference between them. Materials and methods: For the study of reproducibility, 15 eyes of 15 healthy Caucasian subjects were included. Three measurements were taken each day in three separate sessions. For the comparative study, 150 eyes of 150 Caucasian subjects were included (75 normal subjects and 75 patients with glaucoma). Three consecutive measurements were collected with each tonometer, randomizing the order of use. The discomfort caused by each tonometer was evaluated using the visual analogue scale. Results: No statistically significant differences were detected between sessions. In the comparison between tonometers, the measurements with iC100 were statistically lower than those of Perkins (−1.35 ± 0.417, p = 0.004) and that iCare PRO (−1.41 ± 0.417, p = 0.002). The difference between PRO and Perkins was not statistically significant ( p = 0.990). The mean time of measurement (in seconds) with iC100 was significantly lower than with Perkins (6.74 ± 1.46 vs 15.53 ± 2.01, p < 0.001) and that PRO (6.74 ± 1.46 vs 11.53 ± 1.85, p < 0.001). Visual analogue scale score with iC100 was lower than Perkins (1.33 ± 0.99 vs 1.73 ± 1.10, p < 0.05). In total, 61.7% preferred iC100 against Perkins. Conclusion: The reproducibility of this instrument has been proven good. iC100 underestimates intraocular pressure compared to applanation tonometry at normal values and tends to overestimate it in high intraocular pressure values. Most of the subjects preferred iC100 tonometer.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Lee, Kook, Ji Young Lee, Jung Il Moon, and Myoung Hee Park. "Comparison of Icare Rebound Tonometer with Goldmann Applanation Tonometry." Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 54, no. 2 (2013): 296. http://dx.doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2013.54.2.296.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Rödter, Tara Helena, Stephanie Knippschild, Christine Baulig, and Frank Krummenauer. "Meta-analysis of the concordance of Icare® PRO–based rebound and Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients." European Journal of Ophthalmology 30, no. 2 (2019): 245–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1120672119866067.

Full text
Abstract:
Background: The Icare® PRO rebound tonometer is being promoted as a patient-friendly device for glaucoma detection and monitoring, allowing rapid and accurate intraocular pressure measurement avoiding anaesthesia. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the concordance of Icare® PRO and Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients. Methods: The German and English literature research was carried out using PubMed and Cochrane Library between January 2010 and March 2018. Method comparison trials in a paired sample study design were identified. Search criteria were ‘Icare PRO’, ‘Rebound’, ‘Goldmann’ and ‘Applanation’. Adult patients with glaucoma of any aetiology were included. The intraindividual intraocular pressure deviation between Icare® PRO and Goldmann applanation tonometry (mm Hg) served as primary endpoint, parameterized by the reported mean differences. For each study, an asymptotic 95% confidence interval was derived. The overall intraocular pressure meta-difference (Icare® PRO-Goldmann applanation tonometry) and 95% confidence interval were estimated using the random effect model. Result: Of 147 publications, 6 studies (672 eyes) were included after reviewing. Four studies showed an intraocular pressure underestimation by the Icare® PRO, two an overestimation. The meta-difference (Icare® PRO-Goldmann applanation tonometry = −0.14 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval: (−0.43 mm Hg; 0.15 mm Hg)) indicated a non-significant, clinically irrelevant mean deviation (p = 0.335). The devices showed good agreement, but there was a strong heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 77%): two studies presented a significant difference (Icare® PRO-Goldmann applanation tonometry), however, with deviations in opposite directions. Conclusion: Although the manufacturer advertises the Icare® PRO as a ‘tonometer with superior accuracy’, the present review could neither confirm nor deny considerable agreement between Goldmann applanation tonometry and Icare® PRO in glaucomatous patients.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

UZUNEL, Umut Duygu, Bora YÜKSEL, and Tuncay KÜSBECİ. "Intraocular Pressure Measurement with Rebound Tonometer in Eyes with Contact Lenses." Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Ophthalmology 24, no. 2 (2015): 102–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5336/ophthal.2014-42700.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Suman, Suwarna, Ajai Agrawal, Virendra K. Pal, and Vir B. Pratap. "Rebound Tonometer." Journal of Glaucoma 23, no. 9 (2014): 633–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ijg.0b013e318285fefd.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Lambert, Scott R., Michele Melia, Angela N. Buffenn, Michael F. Chiang, Jennifer L. Simpson, and Michael B. Yang. "Rebound Tonometry in Children." Ophthalmology 120, no. 4 (2013): e21-e27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.058.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Price, Jade M., Brooke Saffren, Qiang Zhang, Rose A. Hamershock, James Sharpe, and Alex V. Levin. "Falsely high rebound tonometry." Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus 25, no. 4 (2021): e27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2021.08.104.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Poostchi, Ali, Robert Mitchell, Simon Nicholas, Gordon Purdie, and Anthony Wells. "The iCare rebound tonometer: comparisons with Goldmann tonometry, and influence of central corneal thickness." Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology 37, no. 7 (2009): 687–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2009.02109.x.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Chacaltana, Flor Diana Yokoay Claros, João Antonio Tadeu Pigatto, and Ione Terezinha Denardin. "Assessment of intraocular pressure in chinchillas of different age groups using rebound tonometry." Ciência Rural 46, no. 8 (2016): 1466–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20151206.

Full text
Abstract:
ABSTRACT: The aim of this research was to measure the intraocular pressure (IOP) of normal chinchilla eyes using the rebound tonometer. A further aim was to assess whether there were differences in the values of intraocular pressure in relation to animals age, gender and time of day. Thirty-six chinchillas were divided into three groups of 12 chinchillas each, by age: Group I (2-6-month-old), Group II (20 and 34 months) and Group III (37 and 135 months). Ophthalmic examination was performed previously by Schirmer tear test, slit lamp biomicroscopy, indirect ophthalmoscopy and fluorescein test in all chinchillas. Three measurements of intraocular pressure were assessed on the same day (7, 12 and 19h). Tonometry was performed on both eyes using the rebound tonometer after calibration in "p" mode. Statistical analysis was performed with SigmaPlot for Windows. The mean IOP for groups I, II and III were 2.47±0.581mmHg, 2.47±0.581mmHg and 2.51±0.531mmHg, respectively. No significant differences were reported between age and IOP and no significant differences were reported between the time of day and IOP. The IOP in chinchillas did not differ significantly between genders or ages of the animals, and did not change with time of day.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
11

Baek, Sung Uk, Ahnul Ha, Young Kook Kim, Jin Wook Jeoung, and Ki Ho Park. "Effect of manual eyelid manipulation on intraocular pressure measurement by rebound tonometry." British Journal of Ophthalmology 102, no. 11 (2018): 1515–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311587.

Full text
Abstract:
Background/aimsTo investigate the effect of eyelid manipulation on the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) using two different tonometries (rebound tonometry (RT) vs Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT)).Methods103 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma were prospectively enrolled. For all of the patients, IOP measurements were performed in three different ways: (1) RT with lid manipulation (LM), (2) RT without LM and (3) GAT. The order of the three measurements was randomly selected. Additionally, the palpebral fissure height (PFH; elliptical space between upper and lower eyelids) was measured.ResultsThe mean value of IOP measured by GAT was 13.97±2.80 mm Hg, which was not significantly different from that by RT without LM (13.75±2.44 mm Hg; P=0.096), but which was significantly lower than that by RT with LM (15.21±2.91 mm Hg; P<0.001). On a Bland-Altman plot, RT with LM was overestimated relative to GAT (mean: −1.5) and RT without LM (mean: −1.2). Among the high IOPs (>20 mm Hg), interestingly, those measured by RT without LM were significantly lower than those measured by GAT (P<0.001). In the subgroup analysis of PFH, the smaller the PFH, the more exaggerated the IOP difference between GAT (P=0.014) and RT with LM (P<0.001).ConclusionRT-measured IOP was significantly exaggerated when manipulation was applied to the eyelid. This overall trend was more pronounced when PFH was small. GAT-measured IOP, meanwhile, showed a good correlation with IOP measured using RT without LM.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
12

Muttuvelu, Danson V., Kirsten Baggesen, and Niels Ehlers. "Precision and accuracy of the ICare tonometer - Peripheral and central IOP measurements by rebound tonometry." Acta Ophthalmologica 90, no. 4 (2010): 322–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.01987.x.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
13

Cagatay, Halil Huseyin, Metin Ekinci, Zeliha Yazar, Gokcen Gokce, and Erdinc Ceylan. "Comprasion of ICare Rebound Tonometer and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in High Myopia." Scientific World Journal 2014 (2014): 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/869460.

Full text
Abstract:
Purpose.To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT) and the ICare rebound tonometer (RBT) in high myopic eyes.Patients and Methods. This randomized prospective study included 40 eyes of 40 patients with high myopia. All patients’ central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), axial length (AXL), keratometry, and refractive measurements were recorded and followed by IOP measurement with RBT and GAT.Results. The average CCT, AXL, and ACD were determined to be514.65±32 μm,27.65±2.22 mm, and3.25±0.51 mm, respectively. MeanKwas43.27±1.4 D and mean spherical equivalent was-11.31±4.30 D. The mean IOP values obtained by RBT and GAT were17.18±3.72 mmHg and16.48±3.19 mmHg, respectively. The deviations of RBT readings from corrected GAT values were highly correlated with CCT values (r=0.588,P=0.0001). The mean corrected GAT reading was17.49±3.01 mmHg. Linear regression analysis showed that a CCT change of 10 μm resulted in an RBT reading deviation of 0.57 mmHg. The Bland-Altman scatter-plot and McNemar test showed a clinically good level of agreement between the two tonometers.Conclusion. This study found a good agreement level between the two tonometers in high myopic patients and that RBT measurements are influenced by CCT variations.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
14

Esmael, Amanne, Yomna M. Ismail, Abdelrahman M. Elhusseiny, Alaa E. Fayed, and Hala M. Elhilali. "Agreement profiles for rebound and applanation tonometry in normal and glaucomatous children." European Journal of Ophthalmology 29, no. 4 (2018): 379–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1120672118795060.

Full text
Abstract:
Objectives: To investigate agreement between intraocular pressure measurements by the rebound tonometer and handheld Perkins applanation tonometer in children with and without primary congenital glaucoma and test agreement with intraocular pressure and age variations. Materials and methods: A prospective non-interventional comparative study done on 223 eyes of 115 children, 161 normal eyes, and 62 eyes with primary congenital glaucoma. Intraocular pressure measurements were obtained in the upright position by rebound tonometer first, followed by installation of topical anesthetic eye drops (benoxinate), then measured by Perkins applanation tonometer. Results: For all eyes, mean difference between Perkins applanation tonometer and rebound tonometer was −0.59 ± 2.59 mmHg, p = 0.001. Regression analysis with (r) = 0.9, (r2) = 0.79, and p < 0.001. In primary congenital glaucoma: there was a mean difference of −.79 ± 2.82 (p = 0.032), a good correlation with (r) = 0.94, (r2) = 0.87%, and 95% level of agreement: –6.34 to +4.76. In normal eyes: mean difference was −.52 ± 2.5 (p = 0.01), correlation: (r) = 0.8, (r2) = 0.64, and p = 0.001. The 95% level of agreement −5.41 and +4.36 mmHg. In intraocular pressure ⩽ 15 mmHg: mean difference −0.89 ± 2.15 mmHg, 95% level of agreement between −5.1 and +3.32 mmHg, p < 0.001. In intraocular pressure >15 mmHg: mean difference was 0.04 ± 3.28 mmHg, 95% level of agreement −6.38 and +6.46 mmHg, p = 0.914. Conclusion: There is a good correlation between rebound tonometer and Perkins applanation tonometer in children with and without primary congenital glaucoma; however, rebound tonometer overestimates the intraocular pressure, and in intraocular pressure >15 mmHg there is less agreement between the two devices. Hence, in higher intraocular pressure measurement caution should be taken when interpreting rebound tonometer readings, and a confirmatory measurement using Perkins applanation tonometer is advised.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
15

GARC??A-RES??A, CARLOS, JOS?? M. GONZ??LEZ-MEIJOME, JORGE GILINO, and EVA YEBRA-PIMENTEL. "Accuracy of the New ICare Rebound Tonometer vs. Other Portable Tonometers in Healthy Eyes." Optometry and Vision Science 83, no. 2 (2006): 102–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000200673.96758.7b.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
16

Nakamura, Makoto, Urtogtah Darhad, Yasuko Tatsumi, et al. "Agreement of Rebound Tonometer in Measuring Intraocular Pressure With Three Types of Applanation Tonometers." American Journal of Ophthalmology 142, no. 2 (2006): 332–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2006.02.035.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
17

Krolo, Iva, Boze Mihaljevic, Aida Kasumovic, Maja Ravlic, and Jelena Herman. "Rebound Tonometry over Soft Contact Lenses." Acta Informatica Medica 28, no. 3 (2020): 185. http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/aim.2020.28.185-189.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
18

Andrade, Maria Cristina Caldart de, Paula Stieven Hünning, Fabiana Quartiero Pereira, Kadigia Pitol Dutra, and João Antonio Tadeu Pigatto. "Lip twitch restraint on rebound tonometry in horses." Ciência Rural 46, no. 8 (2016): 1486–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20150378.

Full text
Abstract:
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to verify the effect of the upper lip twitch restraint on intraocular pressure (IOP) of healthy horses. In this study, forty five Criollo horses, aged between two to 20 years (male or female) were evaluated with rebound tonometer, with and without upper lip twitch restraint. A previous ophthalmic examination was performed with Schirmer tear test, fluorescein test, slit lamp biomicroscopy and direct ophthalmoscopy in all horses. Only healthy animals with no ocular findings were used. The order of the IOP measurements (with or without twitch) and order of the eye (right or left) were randomized. Three measurements of each eye were made and the mean was calculated. Head position was kept above the heart level and no pressure was made over eyelids. At least 10 minutes passed between the evaluations of the same horse. Measurements were made between 3:30 and 5:30pm to avoid circadian fluctuation of intraocular pressure. Statistical analysis was performed with SAS 9.2 software. A Split plot factorial design was used where horses were considered blocks. The mean intraocular pressure values obtained with lip twitch restraint (34.68±6.47mmHg) were significantly higher (P<0.05) than those obtained without (29.35±4.08mmHg). There was no relevant statistical difference between right and left eyes. The restraint of horses with upper lip twitch increased equine intraocular pressure measured with the rebound tonometry.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
19

Giacinto, Chiara De, Rossella D’Aloisio, Sara Trovarelli, Agostino Accardo, Odilla Vattovani, and Daniele Tognetto. "Rebound Tonometry in Cataract Surgery: Comparison with Goldmann Applanation Tonometry." Open Journal of Ophthalmology 08, no. 01 (2018): 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojoph.2018.81001.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
20

Schild, A., A. Rosentreter, M. Hermann, et al. "Vergleich zwischen Rebound-Tonometrie und Perkins-Tonometrie am liegenden Glaukompatienten." Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde 228, no. 02 (2010): 125–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1245741.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
21

Özcura, Fatih, Nilgün Yıldırım, Emre Tambova, and Afsun Şahin. "Evaluation of Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in keratoconus." Journal of Optometry 10, no. 2 (2017): 117–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2016.04.005.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
22

De Bernardo, Maddalena, and Nicola Rosa. "Evaluation of Goldmann applanation tonometry, rebound tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry in keratoconus." Journal of Optometry 11, no. 2 (2018): 130–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2017.10.001.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
23

Demirci, Goktug, Sevil Karaman Erdur, Cafer Tanriverdi, Gokhan Gulkilik, and Mustafa Ozsutçu. "Comparison of rebound tonometry and non-contact airpuff tonometry to Goldmann applanation tonometry." Therapeutic Advances in Ophthalmology 11 (January 2019): 251584141983573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2515841419835731.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
24

Davies, Leon N., Hannah Bartlett, Edward A. H. Mallen, and James S. Wolffsohn. "Clinical evaluation of rebound tonometer." Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 84, no. 2 (2006): 206–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0420.2005.00610.x.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
25

Rateb, Mahmoud, Mahmoud Abdel-Radi, Zeiad Eldaly, Mohamed Nagy Elmohamady, and Asaad Noor El Din. "Comparison of IOP Measurement by Goldmann Applanation Tonometer, ICare Rebound Tonometer, and Tono-Pen in Keratoconus Patients after MyoRing Implantation." Journal of Ophthalmology 2019 (May 9, 2019): 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1964107.

Full text
Abstract:
Purpose. To evaluate the different IOP readings by Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), ICare rebound tonometer, and Tono-Pen in keratoconus patients after MyoRing implantation. To assess the influence of central corneal thickness (CCT) and thinnest corneal location (TCL) on IOP measurements by different tonometers. Setting. Prospective observational study was conducted in two private centers in Egypt from February 2015 to November 2016. Methods. Seventeen eyes of 10 patients suffering from keratoconus and who underwent MyoRing implantation were recruited. All subjects underwent GAT, ICare, and Tono-Pen IOP measurements in random order. Central corneal thickness and thinnest corneal location were assessed by Pentacam. Difference in mean in IOP readings was assessed by T-test. Correlation between each pair of devices was evaluated by Pearson correlation coefficient. The Bland–Altman analysis was used to assess intertonometer agreement. Results. Seventeen eyes (10 patients) were evaluated. The mean IOP reading was 13.9 ± 3.68, 12.41 ± 2.87, and 14.29 ± 1.31 mmHg in GAT, ICare, and Tono-Pen group, respectively. There was a significant difference between IOP readings by GAT/ICare and Tono-Pen/ICare (p value: 0.032 and 0.002, respectively) with no significant difference between GAT/Tono-Pen (p value: 0.554). Mean difference in IOP measurements between GAT/ICare was 1.49 ± 2.61 mmHg, Tono-Pen/ICare was 1.89 ± 2.15 mmHg, and GAT/Tono-Pen was −0.39 ± 2.59 mmHg. There was no significant correlation between the difference in IOP readings among any pair of devices and CCC or TCL. The Bland–Altman analysis showed a reasonable agreement between any pair of tonometers.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
26

Martinez-de-la-Casa, Jose M., Julian Garcia-Feijoo, Alfredo Castillo, and Julian Garcia-Sanchez. "Reproducibility and Clinical Evaluation of Rebound Tonometry." Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science 46, no. 12 (2005): 4578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.05-0586.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
27

Bontzos, Georgios, Michail Agiorgiotakis, Zoi Kapsala, and Efstathios Detorakis. "Limbal rebound tonometry: clinical comparisons and applications." Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 255, no. 9 (2017): 1795–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00417-017-3725-7.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
28

ANCUȚA, Diana Larisa, Diana Mihaela ALEXANDRU, Maria CRIVINEANU, Răzvan BOTEZATU, and Cristin COMAN. "The Basic Values of Intraocular Pressure Measured by Rebound Tonometry in Guinea Pig." Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Veterinary Medicine 78, no. 1 (2021): 38. http://dx.doi.org/10.15835/buasvmcn-vm:2020.0021.

Full text
Abstract:
Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is the most important risk factor associated with the progression of glaucoma and the research on animal models is constantly evolving. Rebound tonometry has been shown to be useful for the evaluation of IOP, not only for the human patient but also for the animal patient. The aim of the paper is to assess intraocular pressure in guinea pigs in order to establish reference values. IOP was measured for three days, at different time intervals, in 40 guinea pigs, using the iCare Tonovet TV01 tonometer. The mean values obtained in coloured guinea pigs were 13.82 mmHg ± 1.64 mmHg in the right eye, 14.11 mmHg ± 1.68 mmHg in the left eye, and in white guinea pigs 12.56 mmHg ± 0.95 mmHg in the right eye, 13.02 mmHg ± 1.29 mmHg for the left eye. The values obtained from this study it can be concluded that the strain of coloured, records the highest values in the morning, which remain linear during the day, and decrease in the evening compared to the white strain which has a constant evolution during the day, and in the evening increases.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
29

Kato, Yoshitake, Shunsuke Nakakura, Naoko Matsuo, et al. "Agreement among Goldmann applanation tonometer, iCare, and Icare PRO rebound tonometers; non-contact tonometer; and Tonopen XL in healthy elderly subjects." International Ophthalmology 38, no. 2 (2017): 687–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0518-2.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
30

Aceituno Paredes, S. C., A. L. Asturias de León, and J. Barnoya Pérez. "Rebound tonometry with re-sterilised tips versus Goldmann applanation tonometry in children." Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología (English Edition) 95, no. 7 (2020): 322–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oftale.2020.03.005.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
31

Marini, Marino, Stefano Da Pozzo, Agostino Accardo, and Tiziana Canziani. "Comparing Applanation Tonometry and Rebound Tonometry in Glaucomatous and Ocular Hypertensive Eyes." European Journal of Ophthalmology 21, no. 3 (2011): 258–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.5301/ejo.2010.5767.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
32

Beckman, Kenneth A., Jodi I. Luchs, Mark S. Milner, and Richard W. Yee. "Changes in preoperative corneal measurements following same-day intraocular pressure testing with rebound tonometry." Therapeutic Advances in Ophthalmology 12 (January 2020): 251584141989207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2515841419892070.

Full text
Abstract:
Purpose: To evaluate the extent to which rebound tonometry affects corneal surface properties and preoperative corneal measurements. Setting: Four cornea specialty private practices. Design: Prospective case series. Methods: Visual acuity testing, corneal topography, keratometry, and grading of corneal staining were performed on both eyes of 60 randomly selected, previously scheduled patients. Technicians then performed rebound tonometry on one randomly selected eye only. Immediately following, intraocular pressure measurement, corneal topography, keratometry, and corneal staining were repeated on both eyes. Results: None of the 60 study eyes developed increased staining scores following intraocular pressure testing with the Icare ic100. For corneal staining, mean keratometry, and total corneal cylinder, no statistically significant difference was found from the first measurement to the second measurement between the study eyes and control eyes. Conclusion: Rebound tonometry with the Icare ic100 may be used on any patient at any time during the exam without affecting the results of other tests, allowing clinicians to test intraocular pressure prior to preoperative cataract or refractive surgery measurements on the same day. This may allow for significant improvement in patient flow in the office and save patients from the cost and time of extra visits.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
33

Beasley, Ian G., Deborah S. Laughton, Benjamin J. Coldrick, Thomas E. Drew, Marium Sallah, and Leon N. Davies. "Does Rebound Tonometry Probe Misalignment Modify Intraocular Pressure Measurements in Human Eyes?" Journal of Ophthalmology 2013 (2013): 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/791084.

Full text
Abstract:
Purpose. To examine the influence of positional misalignments on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement with a rebound tonometer.Methods. Using the iCare rebound tonometer, IOP readings were taken from the right eye of 36 healthy subjects at the central corneal apex (CC) and compared to IOP measures using the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Using a bespoke rig, iCare IOP readings were also taken 2 mm laterally from CC, both nasally and temporally, along with angular deviations of 5 and 10 degrees, both nasally and temporally to the visual axis.Results. Mean IOP ± SD, as measured by GAT, was14.7±2.5 mmHgversusiCare tonometer readings of17.4±3.6 mmHg at CC, representing an iCare IOP overestimation of2.7±2.8 mmHg (P<0.001), which increased at higher average IOPs. IOP at CC using the iCare tonometer was not significantly different to values at lateral displacements. IOP was marginally underestimated with angular deviation of the probe but only reaching significance at 10 degrees nasally.Conclusions. As shown previously, the iCare tonometer overestimates IOP compared to GAT. However, IOP measurement in normal, healthy subjects using the iCare rebound tonometer appears insensitive to misalignments. An IOP underestimation of <1 mmHg with the probe deviated 10 degrees nasally reached statistical but not clinical significance levels.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
34

Dorofeev, D. A., O. G. Pozdeeva, V. F. Ekgardt, et al. "Ophthalmotonometric indicators measured by maklakov applanation tonometer and rebound tonometer." Reflection 7, no. 2 (2018): 27–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.25276/2686-6986-2018-2-27-32.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
35

Falcão, Mário S. A., Rafael V. Monteiro, Arianne P. Oriá, and Paula D. Galera. "Modified Schirmer tear test and rebound tonometry in blue-fronted Amazon parrot (Amazona aestiva)." Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira 37, no. 8 (2017): 871–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0100-736x2017000800015.

Full text
Abstract:
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to describe the modified Schirmer tear test (mSTT), intraocular pressure (IOP) by rebound tonometry and palpebral fissure length (PFL) in blue-fronted Amazon parrots (Amazona aestiva). Thirty-five healthy adult animals from a conservation breeding center in Brazil were used in this study. Modified Schirmer tear test, rebound tonometry and PFL measurements were performed in both eyes, with birds under physical restraint. Mean mSTT was 6.2±0.1mm/min and mean IOP was 6.4±0.1mmHg, while PFL was 10.1±0.1mm. A moderate correlation was seen between mSTT and PFL for OD (ρ=0.14) and OS (ρ=0.20). The results provide ophthalmic tests reference values for A. aestiva.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
36

Moreno-Montañés, Javier, José M. Martínez-de-la-Casa, Alfonso L. Sabater, Laura Morales-Fernandez, Cristina Sáenz, and Julián Garcia-Feijoo. "Clinical Evaluation of the New Rebound Tonometers Icare PRO and Icare ONE Compared With the Goldmann Tonometer." Journal of Glaucoma 24, no. 7 (2015): 527–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ijg.0000000000000058.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
37

Chui, Wan-sang, Andrew Lam, Davie Chen, and Roger Chiu. "The Influence of Corneal Properties on Rebound Tonometry." Ophthalmology 115, no. 1 (2008): 80–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.061.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
38

Elsmo, Elizabeth J., Julie A. Kiland, Paul L. Kaufman, and Gillian J. McLellan. "Evaluation of rebound tonometry in non-human primates." Experimental Eye Research 92, no. 4 (2011): 268–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2011.01.013.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
39

Park, Hye Won, and Hye Young Kim. "Comparison of Rebound Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry in Restrictive Thyroid Eye Disease." Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 56, no. 12 (2015): 1826. http://dx.doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2015.56.12.1826.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
40

Lam, Andrew K. C., Ricky Wu, Zheng Wang, et al. "Effect of laser in situ keratomileusis on rebound tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry." Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 36, no. 4 (2010): 631–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.10.045.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
41

Li, Yifan, Christopher R. Carpenter, Kathryn Nicholson, and William Ken Milne. "Diagnostic accuracy of the iCare rebound tonometer compared to the Perkins applanation tonometer in assessing intraocular pressure in rural patients." Diagnosis 2, no. 4 (2015): 227–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/dx-2015-0026.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractVision health is recognized as a critical unmet need in North America. The ocular morbidity associated with glaucoma results from increased intraocular pressure (IOP) and early detection is crucial for the management of glaucoma. Our objective was to find a diagnostically accurate screening tool for intraocular hypertension that can be used in rural communities. We sought to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the iCare rebound tonometer against the gold standard Perkins applanation tonometer (PAT) in measuring IOP.Patients from two rural communities in Ontario, Canada visiting their optometrists for routine appointments had their IOP measured by a non-contact tonometer (NCT), an iCare rebound tonometer, and a Perkins applanation tonometer (PAT). Values of sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for a positive and negative result were calculated for the iCare and the NCT.Complete data was collected from 209 patients. Overall, the iCare tonometer had high levels of validity, as compared to the gold standard PAT. The iCare tonometer displayed excellent sensitivity of 98.3% (90–99%, 95% CI) and excellent negative likelihood ratio of 0.024 (0.0088–0.066, 95% CI) which is useful for ruling out intraocular hypertension.The iCare tonometer is a reasonably valid tool for detecting elevated IOP. Its ease of use, simplicity, and accessibility makes it a good screening tool to improve eye health in rural areas.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
42

Gao, Feng, Xu Liu, Qing Zhao, and Yingzhe Pan. "Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer." Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 13, no. 5 (2017): 1912–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.4164.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
43

Kageyama, Mitsuyo, Kazuyuki Hirooka, Tetsuya Baba, and Fumio Shiraga. "Comparison of ICare Rebound Tonometer With Noncontact Tonometer in Healthy Children." Journal of Glaucoma 20, no. 1 (2011): 63–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ijg.0b013e3181d12dc4.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
44

Moreno-Montañés, Javier, Noelia García, Ana Fernández-Hortelano, and Alfredo García-Layana. "Rebound Tonometer Compared With Goldmann Tonometer in Normal and Pathologic Corneas." Cornea 26, no. 4 (2007): 427–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ico.0b013e318030df6e.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
45

Jorge, J., P. Fernandes, A. Queirós, P. Ribeiro, C. Garcês, and J. M. Gonzalez-Meijome. "Comparison of the IOPen® and iCare® rebound tonometers with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population." Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 30, no. 1 (2010): 108–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2009.00697.x.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
46

Dey, Ashim, RathiniLilian David, Rashima Asokan, and Ronnie George. "Changes in corneal properties and its effect on intraocular pressure measurement following phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation with or without trabeculectomy." Asian Journal of Ophthalmology 16, no. 1 (2018): 35–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.35119/asjoo.v16i1.344.

Full text
Abstract:
Purpose: To evaluate the changes incorneal biomechanical properties and their effect on pre and postoperative differences in IOP measurement by each tonometer
 Design: Observational study.
 Methods: The study was done in subjects who underwent phacoemulsification with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation (phaco-IOL) and combined phacoemulsification with IOL implantation and trabeculectomy (phaco-trab). IOP was measured by a single trained examiner using rebound tonometer (RBT), Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA), Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), and Tono-Pen. Corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) were measured using ORA, central corneal thickness (CCT) using ultrasonic pachymeter, and corneal curvature (CR) with manual keratometry. All measurements were done one week prior to surgery and after four weeks and six weeks of the two surgeries, respectively. Only the operated eye was included for analysis.
 Results: Twenty-nine eyes of 29 normal subjects who underwent phaco-IOL and 23 eyes of 23 glaucoma subjects who underwent phaco-trab were studied. Increase in CCT [10.2 ± 14.86 microns, p = 0.001], decrease in CH [0.82 ± 1.38 mmHg, p = 0.003] and CRF [0.97 ± 1.0 mmHg, p < 0.001] were found post-phaco-IOL, whereas post-phaco-trab decrease in CCT [16.61 ± 15.22 microns, p < 0.001], CRF [2.28 ± 1.93 mmHg, p < 0.001] with increase in CH [0.95 ± 1.89 mmHg, p = 0.03] were noted. Multiple linear regression analysis showed significant associations for change in CH and CRF with change in IOP and not with CCT and CR postoperatively.
 Conclusion: Alterations in CH and CRF were associated with changes in IOP measured postoperatively by different tonometers. CH and CRF changes contribute to postoperative changes in measured IOP.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
47

Wasielica-Poslednik, Joanna, Christina Butsch, Christina Lampe, et al. "Comparison of Rebound Tonometry, Perkins Applanation Tonometry and Ocular Response Analyser in Mucopolysaccharidosis Patients." PLOS ONE 10, no. 8 (2015): e0133586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133586.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
48

Iliev, M. E., D. Goldblum, K. Katsoulis, C. Amstutz, and B. Frueh. "Comparison of rebound tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry and correlation with central corneal thickness." British Journal of Ophthalmology 90, no. 7 (2006): 833–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2005.089870.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
49

NAGATA, Noriyuki, Masashi YUKI, and Takashi HASEGAWA. "In Vitro and In Vivo Comparison of Applanation Tonometry and Rebound Tonometry in Dogs." Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 73, no. 12 (2011): 1585–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1292/jvms.11-0251.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
50

BRANDTNER, H., W. HITZL, C. STROHMAIER, et al. "Correlation between Goldmann applanation tonometry and rebound tonometry in relation to central corneal thickness." Acta Ophthalmologica 87 (September 2009): 0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2009.227.x.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography