Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Krzyzanowska-Berkowska, Patrycja; Asejczyk-Widlicka, Magdalena; Pierscionek, Barbara K. (2012)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: BMC Ophthalmology
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: RE1-994, Research Article, Intraocular pressure, Cornea, Paediatric Ophthalmology, Tonometry, alliedhealth, biological, Ophthalmology, Child

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: genetic structures, eye diseases, sense organs



Intraocular pressure (IOP) in the developing eye of a child is not always easy to measure and there is no technique that is known to be the most accurate for the young eye. Measurements are needed on many cohorts of children with different tonometers to determine how the values correlate between instruments, whether corneal parameters affect readings and whether correlations between age and IOP values can be discerned. The aim of this study was to undertake a comparative analysis of three different tonometers on a group of healthy children to see whether differences exist and whether these may be related to central corneal thickness and/or radius of curvature. In addition, the study adds to the relatively small body of literature on IOP in the growing eye which will collectively allow trends to be identified and ultimately norms to be established.


IOP was measured on 115 eyes in a group of Polish children, aged between 5–17 years (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 11.3 ± 3.0 years) using three different tonometers: non-contact (NCT), the ICare and Goldmann applanation (GAT). Readings obtained were compared between instruments and with central corneal thickness and radius of curvature.


The ICare tonometer provided statistically higher IOP values (16.9 ± 3.4 mmHg) than the GAT (14.7 ± 2.9 mmHg) regardless of corneal thickness and whether or not a correction factor was applied. A correlation was found between central corneal thickness (CCT) and IOP values obtained with all three tonometers but only the IOP values detected with the ICare tonometer showed a statistically significant correlation with radius of curvature (p < 0.004). No correlations with age or gender were found for IOP values measured with any of the instruments.


IOP measurements on children vary significantly between instruments and correlations are affected by the corneal thickness. Further studies on children are needed to determine which instrument is most appropriate and to derive a normative IOP scale for the growing eye.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Duckman RH: A new induction-based impact method for measuring intraocular pressure. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 2000, 78:142-145.
    • 2. Pensiero S, Da Pozzo S, Perissutti P, Cavallini GM, Guerra R: Normal intraocular pressure in children. J Pediatric Ophthalmol & Strabismus 1992, 29:79-84.
    • 3. Sahin A, Basmak H, Niyaz L, Yildirim N: Reproducibility and tolerability of the ICare rebound tonometer in school children. J Glaucoma 2007, 16:185-188.
    • 4. Sahin A, Basmak H, Yildirim N: The influence of central corneal thickness and corneal curvature on intraocular pressure measured by Tono-Pen and rebound tonometer in children. J Glaucoma 2008, 17:57-61.
    • 5. Lundvall A, Svedberg H, Chen E: Application of the ICare rebound tonometer in healthy infants. J Glaucoma 2011, 20:7-9.
    • 6. Kageyama M, Hirooka K, Baba T, Shiraga F: Comparison of ICare rebound tonometer with noncontact tonometer in healthy children. J Glaucoma 2011, 20:63-66.
    • 7. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Parisi L: Comparison of ICare tonometer with goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma 2006, 15:213-217.
    • 8. Davies LN, Bartlett H, Mallen EA, Wolffsohn JS: Clinical evaluation of rebound tonometer. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006, 84:206-209.
    • 9. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Vico E, Fernandez-Vidal A, del Benitez Castillo JM, Wasfi M, Garcia-Sanchez J: Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and Goldmann tonometry. Ophthalmology 2006, 113:2156-2162.
    • 10. Nakamura M, Darhad U, Tatsumi Y, Fujioka M, Kusuhara A, Maeda H, Negi A: Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of applanation tonometers. Am J Ophthamol 2006, 142:332-334.
    • 11. Pakrou N, Gray T, Mills RA, Landers JA, Craig J: Clinical comparison of the ICare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma 2008, 17:43-47.
    • 12. Rehnman JB, Martin L: Comparison of rebound and applanation tonometry in the management of patients treated for glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Ophthal Physiol Opt 2008, 28:382-386.
    • 13. Van Der Jagt LH, Jansonius NM: Three portable tonometers, the TGDc-01, the ICare and the Tonopen XL, compared with each other and with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthal Physiol Opt 2005, 25:429-435.
    • 14. Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S: Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol 1975, 53:34-43.
    • 15. Kniestedt C, Punjabi O, Lin S, Stamper RL: Tonometry through the ages. Surv Ophthalmol 2008, 53:568-591.
    • 16. Chihara E: Assessment of true intraocular pressure: the gap between theory and practical data. Surv Ophthalmol 2008, 53:203-218.
    • 17. Krzyzanowska-Berkowska P, Asejczyk-Widlicka M: Clinical evaluation of the ICare tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure. Klin Ocz 2010, 112:217-220.
    • 18. Harada Y, Hirose N, Kubota T, Tawara A: The influence of central corneal thickness and corneal curvature radius on the intraocular pressure as measured by different tonometers: noncontact and goldmann applanation tonometers. J. Glaucoma 2008, 17:619-625.
    • 19. Johnson M, Kass MA, Moses RA, Grodzki WJ: Increased cornea thickness simulating elevated intraocular pressure. Arch Ophthalmol 1978, 96:664-665.
    • 20. Whitacre MM, Stein RA, Hassanein K: The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 1993, 115:592-596.
    • 21. Bhan A, Browning AC, Shah S, Hamilton R, Dave D, Dua HS: Effect of thickness on intraocular pressure measurements with the pneumotonometer, Goldmann applanation tonometer, and tono-pen. Invest Ophthalmol and Vis Sci 2002, 43:1389-1392.
    • 22. Broman AT, Congdon NG, Bandeen-Roche K, Quigley HA: Influence of corneal structure, corneal responsiveness, and other ocular parameters on tonometric measurement of intraocular pressure. J Glaucoma 2007, 16:581-588.
    • 23. Stodtmeister R: Applanation tonometry and correction according to corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998, 76:319-324.
    • 24. Feltgen N, Leifert D, Funk J: Correlation between central corneal thickness, applanation tonometry, and direct intracameral IOP readings. Br J Ophthalmol 2001, 85:85-87.
    • 25. Pache M, Wilmsmeyer S, Lautebach S, Funk J: Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005, 243:763-767.
    • 26. Muir KW, Jin J, Freedman SF: Central corneal thickness and its relationship to Intraocular pressure in children. Ophthalmology 2004, 111:2220-2223.
    • 27. Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, i:307-310.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article