RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: After its introduction in 2003 the iCare® rebound tonometry has gained wide acceptance, mostly as a result of immediate method comparison trials showing high concordance with the Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) as a reference method. The objective of this systemic review was the synopsis of the current literature as a rationale of a concordance evaluation between the iCare® rebound and the Goldmann applanation tonometry methods. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for Anglo-American and German publications comparing intraindividually the two tonometry methods and having been published during the period 01/2005 to 08/2014. The primary endpoint of the review was the reported IOD deviation [mmHg] between the two devices; for each trial, this primary endpoint was parameterised in terms of the "mean deviation" as well as the "relative frequency [%] of measurements with an intraindividual deviation of ≥â±â3 mmHg". A total of 33 published method comparison studies concerning the iCare TA01i device were included, 17 of them being published between 01/2009 and 08/2014. The number of analysed eyes ranged between 28 and 445; 17 of the 33 studies reported more than 100 examined eyes. 7 of the 33 studies included only healthy eyes. RESULTS: Only 10 out of the 33 studies reported a mean deviation of more than ± 1.5 mmHg, 7 of these were published between 01/2009 and 08/2014. Only 12 of the 33 studies reported the relative frequency of intraindividual deviations ≥â±â3 mmHg, 7 of them reporting a frequency > 20â% (with a maximum of 51â%), with higher frequencies being derived from samples showing higher IOD levels according to the GAT reference. CONCLUSION: As concluded from the current literature the iCare® rebound and the Goldmann applanation tonometry methods cannot be considered exchangable.
Asunto(s)
Presión Intraocular/fisiología , Manometría/métodos , Manometría/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
PURPOSE: A prospective reliability trial was implemented to estimate the inter- and intraobserver reproducibility of iCare® rebound tonometry in healthy proband eyes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three independent observers performed three replicate measurements, respectively, by means of the iCare®PRO rebound tonometry device in 20 eyes of 20 healthy probands. Two of these observers were medical doctors with an at least two years experience in ophthalmological patient care, the third observer was a study nurse with several years practice in applying ophthalmological diagnostic procedures. Each observer's replicate measurements were averaged and then compared by means of a global Friedman test for interobserver bias in the parallel rebound tonometry measurements at the 5â% significance level. In addition, variance component analysis was performed on the overall repeated measurement design to estimate the iCare® reliability coefficient [%] (100â% indicating total reproducibility in absence of any inter or intra observer bias). RESULTS: The respective observers' median average measurements were 15.9 mmHg (interquartile range 15.1 to 17.5 mmHg) and 15.1 mmHg (14.3 to 15.6 mmHg) for the medical doctors, furthermore 16.8 mmHg (14.2 to 18.9 mmHg) for the study nurse; the averaged measurement series showed a significant interobserver bias (Friedman p = 0.006). Variance component analysis revealed an overall iCare® reliability of 35â% (95â% confidence interval 26 to 44â%). CONCLUSION: In this repeated measurement design iCare® rebound tonometry measurements showed significant interobserver bias and thereby notably reduced overall reliability. In particular, the intraindividual measurement profiles showed a gradient towards smaller values during the 9 replicates' series; furthermore the study nurses' measurements showed notably increased variability. As a consequence the routine use of iCare® rebound tonometry must be critically discussed at least when being delegated to less experienced staff.