International Ophthalmology

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 221–225 | Cite as

Comparison of Goldmann applanation and dynamic contour tonometry in a population of Mexican open-angle glaucoma patients

  • J. Jimenez-Roman
  • F. Gil-Carrasco
  • A. Martinez
  • O. Albis-Donado
  • J. D. De la Torre-Tovar
Original Paper


To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with Goldmann applanation (GAT) and dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) in a Mexican population. 40 glaucoma patients were included in this cross-sectional observational cohort study. IOP measurements were performed in the following order: DCT, ultrasonic pachymetry and GAT, with a 5-minute difference between each measurement, between 8 am and 2 pm. Only DCT measurements of good quality (Q ≤ 3) were accepted. GAT measurements were made three times with the same Goldmann tonometer, previously checked for calibration errors, and the mean was used for statistical purposes. The IOP (mean [standard deviation], 95 % confidence interval [CI]) measured with the Goldmann tonometer (13.2 [2.4], 12.4–14.0 mmHg) was significantly lower than that obtained with the DCT (18.4 [3.3], 17.0–19.2 mmHg), p < 0.0001. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between CCT and IOP measured with GAT and DCT were (r = 0.24, 95 % CI = 0.07–0.52, p = 0.133) and (r = 0.13, 95 % CI = –0.19 to 0.43, p = 0.412), respectively. The concordance correlation coefficient between GAT and DCT was rc = 0.3, 95 % CI = 0.17–0.41). DCT seems to overestimate the IOP as compared to GAT. Additionally, although there was a good correlation between the IOP measurements assessed with either GAT or DCT, the agreement was poor.


Open-angle glaucoma Intraocular pressure Goldmann applanation tonometry Dynamic contour tonometry Central corneal thickness 


  1. 1.
    Herndon LW (2006) Measuring IOP: adjustments for corneal thickness and new technologies. Curr Opin Ophthalmol V17(2):115–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ElMallah MK, Asrani SG (2008) New ways to measure intraocular pressure. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 19:122–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chihara E (2008) Major review: assessment of true intraocular pressure: the gap between theory and practical data. Surv Ophthalmol 53:203–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldmann H, Schmidt T (1957) Uber applanationstonometrie. Ophthalmologica 134:221–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J, Bostrom A, Nee M, Stamper RL (2005) Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relationship to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol 123:1532–1537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Copt RP, Thomas R, Mermoud A (1999) Corneal thickness in ocular hypertension, primary open-angle glaucoma, and normal tension glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 117:14–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boehm AG, Weber A, Pillunat LE, Koch R, Spoerl E (2008) Dynamic contour tonometry in comparison to intracameral IOP measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:2472–2477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kanngiesser HE, Kniestedt C, Robert YCA (2005) Dynamic contour tonometry: presentation of a new tonometer. J Glaucoma 14:344–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hodapp E, Parrish R, Anderson D (1993) Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. Mosby-Year Book, St LouisGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:255–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin LI (2000) A note on the concordance correlation coefficient. Biometrics 56:324–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barleon L, Hoffman EM, Berres M, Pfeiffer N, Grus FH (2006) Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma patients and healthy subjects. Am J Ophthalmol 142:583–590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pache M, Wilmsmeyer S, Lautebach S, Funk J (2005) Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldman applanation tonometry: a comparative study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:763–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herdener S, Pache M, Lautebach S, Funk J (2007) Dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) versus Goldman applanation tonometry (GAT) – a comparison of agreement and reproducibility. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245:1027–1030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Brusini P (2007) Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the TonoPen, and Goldman applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85:272–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Francis B, Hsieh A, Lai MY, Chopra V, Pena F, Azen S, Varma R, Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group (2007) Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Ophthalmology 114:20–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halkiadakis I, Patsea E, Chatzimichali K, Skouriotis S, Chalkidou S, Amariotakis G et al (2009) Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry in glaucoma practice. Acta Ophthalmol 87(3):323–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Vico E, Fernandez-Vidal A, Benitez del Castillo JM, Wasfi M et al (2006) Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and goldmann tonometry. Ophthalmology 113(12):2156–2162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kniestedt C, Nee M, Stamper RL (2004) Dynamic contour tonometry: a comparative study on human cadaver eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 122(9):1287–1293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA (2003) Intraocular pressure measurements using dynamic contour tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:3790–3794PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Siganos DS, Papastergiou GI, Moedas C (2004) Assessment of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer in monitoring intraocular pressure in unoperated eyes and eyes after LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:746–751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ku JY, Danesh-Meyer HV, Craig JP et al (2006) Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Eye (Lond) 20:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Doyle A, Lachkar Y (2005) Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldman applanation tonometry over a wide range of central corneal thickness. J Glaucoma 14:288–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kamppeter BA, Jonas JB (2005) Dynamic contour tonometry for intraocular pressure measurement. Am J Ophthalmol 140:318–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kotecha A, White ET, Shewry JM et al (2005) The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol 89:1572–1575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hager A, Loge K, Schroeder B, Füllhas MO, Wiegand W (2008) Effect of central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis on tonometry as measured by dynamic contour tonometry, ocular response analyzer, and Goldmann tonometry in glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma 17:361–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Jimenez-Roman
    • 1
    • 3
  • F. Gil-Carrasco
    • 1
  • A. Martinez
    • 2
  • O. Albis-Donado
    • 1
  • J. D. De la Torre-Tovar
    • 1
  1. 1.Association for Preventing Blindness in Mexico (Dr. Luis Sanchez Bulnes Hospital)Mexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Science & Sports ResearchAmesSpain
  3. 3.Vicente García Torres 46, San Lucas, CoyoacánMexicoMexico

Personalised recommendations