Skip to main content
PMC home page
The British Journal of Ophthalmology logoLink to The British Journal of Ophthalmology
. 2001 Nov;85(11):1303–1304. doi: 10.1136/bjo.85.11.1303

Clinical comparison of the Keeler Pulsair 3000 with Goldmann applanation tonometry

V Parker 1, J Herrtage 1, N Sarkies 1
PMCID: PMC1723760  PMID: 11673293

Abstract

AIM—To confirm the accuracy of the Pulsair 3000 before introducing the instrument into clinical practice.
METHOD—A masked study by two experienced tonometrists comparing the mean of the Goldmann intraocular pressure (IOP) readings against the Pulsair 3000 reading (average of four puffs). Results of 150 eyes were compared with an IOP range of 10 mm Hg-44 mm Hg.
RESULTS—Correlation between the two Goldmann tonometry results was 0.9830 with a standard deviation of 1.1085 mm Hg. Correlation between the mean of the two Goldmann readings against the Pulsair 3000 reading was 0.982 with a standard deviation of 1.1179 mm Hg. Bland-Altman analysis confirms a satisfactory outcome.
CONCLUSION—The Pulsair 3000 provides an accurate and objective method of measuring IOP with many advantages over traditional Goldmann tonometry.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (84.1 KB).

Figure 1  .

Figure 1  

Open in a new tab

Correlation between Goldmann mean and Pulsair mean.

Figure 2  .

Figure 2  

Open in a new tab

Bland-Altman analysis.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bland J. M., Altman D. G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307–310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brencher H. L., Kohl P., Reinke A. R., Yolton R. L. Clinical comparison of air-puff and Goldmann tonometers. J Am Optom Assoc. 1991 May;62(5):395–402. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Kass M. A. Standardizing the measurement of intraocular pressure for clinical research. Guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum. Ophthalmology. 1996 Jan;103(1):183–185. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(96)30741-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Moseley M. J., Evans N. M., Fielder A. R. Comparison of a new non-contact tonometer with Goldmann applanation. Eye (Lond) 1989;3(Pt 3):332–337. doi: 10.1038/eye.1989.48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Rizzo M., Corbett J. J., Thompson H. S. Is applanation tonometry a risk factor for transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? Arch Ophthalmol. 1987 Mar;105(3):314–314. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1987.01060030028007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Vernon S. A. Reproducibility with the Keeler Pulsair 2000 non-contact tonometer. Br J Ophthalmol. 1995 Jun;79(6):554–557. doi: 10.1136/bjo.79.6.554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Wilke K. Effects of repeated tonometry: genuine and sham measurements. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1972;50(4):574–582. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1972.tb05987.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Wingert T. A., Bassi C. J., McAlister W. H., Galanis J. C. Clinical evaluation of five portable tonometers. J Am Optom Assoc. 1995 Nov;66(11):670–674. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of Ophthalmology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES