title: Comparison of Proview phosphene tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  To compare intraocular pressures obtained using a handheld pressure phosphene tonometer (PPT) (Proview, Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tampa, Fla.) with Goldmann applanation tonometry.
  
  
  METHODS
  Comparative case series of 30 randomly selected patients.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The readings obtained with the pressure phosphene tonometer display a higher mean and a larger standard deviation than those obtained with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Differences between PPT and GAT readings tended to decrease as a function of increased Goldmann levels. The relation of Proview and Goldmann readings (r = 0.32) and the scatterplot were not consistent with the hypothesis that the 2 methods are equivalent.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our results indicate that the pressure phosphene-type handheld tonometry method, which does not appear to provide an accurate and consistent measure of intraocular pressure, is substantially less reliable than the Goldmann method.
authors.affiliation: Eye Foundation of Kansas City, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, MO 64108, USA.
authors.forename: Scott J
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Morledge-Hampton
authors.forename: Robert O
authors.initials: RO
authors.lastname: Kwon
authors.forename: Rohit
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Krishna
authors.forename: Peter W
authors.initials: PW
authors.lastname: Debry
authors.forename: Thomas L
authors.initials: TL
authors.lastname: Willoughby
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D005901:Glaucoma / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D007429:Intraocular Pressure / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010719:Phosphenes / Q000502:physiology*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D014065:Tonometry, Ocular / Q000379:methods*