Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose: This study evaluated the intra-session repeatability of the Easyton® transpalpebral tonometer and assessed inter-device agreement among Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), non-contact tonometry (NCT), rebound tonometry (RBT), and Easyton in eyes with normal-tension glaucoma (NTG). Methods: This retrospective study included 13 patients (22 eyes) with NTG who underwent intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement during a single visit using NCT, GAT, RBT, and Easyton. The measurement sequence followed fixed clinical flow (NCT → GAT → RBT → Easyton). The three individual Easyton readings were used for the repeatability analysis, whereas device-specific means of three readings were used for the agreement analyses. Intra-session repeatability was assessed using two-way mixed-effects, absolute-agreement intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and within-subject variability indices. Agreement between GAT and each device was evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis, and proportional bias was assessed by linear regression of inter-device differences on mean IOP. Results: Mean IOP (mmHg) was 12.32 ± 2.70 with GAT, 15.27 ± 2.73 with NCT, 13.61 ± 2.21 with RBT, and 15.56 ± 1.99 with Easyton. Easyton demonstrated good intra-session repeatability (ICC, 0.854 for single measures; 0.946 for the average of three), with within-subject SD of 0.80 mmHg and coefficient of repeatability of 2.21 mmHg. Bland-Altman mean differences (GAT - device) were -2.95 mmHg (vs. NCT), -1.30 mmHg (vs. RBT), and -3.24 mmHg (vs. Easyton), with 95% limits of agreement for GAT vs. Easyton of -7.45 to 0.96 mmHg. For GAT vs. Easyton, the proportional bias slope was 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.07 to 0.81; p = 0.09). Conclusions: In NTG eyes, Easyton showed good intra-session repeatability and measured higher IOP than GAT on average. It may be useful for repeated IOP measurements within a single visit, but its limited agreement with GAT does not support direct interchangeability. Its suitability for longitudinal IOP monitoring remains to be established.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: