Comparison of Proview phosphene tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry.
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.
Morledge-Hampton
Scott J
SJ
Eye Foundation of Kansas City, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, MO 64108, USA.
Kwon
Robert O
RO
Krishna
Rohit
R
Debry
Peter W
PW
Willoughby
Thomas L
TL
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*