Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: This study compared a new noncontact tonometer (NCT), the Nidek NT-4000 (Nidek Co., Ltd., Aichi, Japan), with a pulse detection feature; an earlier model, the Nidek NT-2000, without this pulse detection facility; and Goldmann tonometry. METHODS: Thirty-one young subjects had their intraocular pressure (IOP) in one eye randomly measured by two NCT's, followed by a Goldmann tonometer. The pulse detection mode used by the NT-4000 included synchronizing the IOP with the peak of the pulse (P-P), the middle of the pulse (P-M), or the bottom of the pulse (P-B). The order of measurements from these three modes was also random. Three consecutive readings were obtained from each mode/tonometer, and the mean was used for analysis. RESULTS: Goldmann tonometry demonstrated the smallest variation from consecutive measurements (coefficient of variation, <4%), followed by the NT-4000 (coefficient of variation, <5% in various modes) and the NT-2000 (coefficient of variation, >5%). For the NT-4000, the mean IOP decreased from the highest in the P-P mode (16.1 mm Hg) to the lowest in the P-B mode (14.7 mm Hg), with the P-M mode in the middle. A significant difference was found among the IOP readings using the NT-4000 (in various modes), NT-2000, and Goldmann tonometry (repeated-measures analysis of variance, p < 0.01). More than 80% of the results from the NT-4000 were within 3 mm Hg of those from the Goldmann tonometry. CONCLUSIONS: The pulse detection feature from this new NCT could capture and monitor pulse waves, thus reducing the variations in the consecutive measurements. The NT-4000 also performed better than the NT-2000 when compared with the Goldmann tonometry.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lam et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: