Skip to main content


Log in

Agreement among Goldmann applanation tonometer, iCare, and Icare PRO rebound tonometers; non-contact tonometer; and Tonopen XL in healthy elderly subjects

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript



To evaluate the inter-device agreement among the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), iCare and Icare PRO rebound tonometers, non-contact tonometer (NCT), and Tonopen XL tonometer.


Sixty healthy elderly subjects were enrolled. The intraocular pressure (IOP) in each subject’s right eye was measured thrice using each of the five tonometers. Intra-device agreement was evaluated by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Inter-device agreement was evaluated by ICC and Bland–Altman analyses.


ICCs for intra-device agreement for each tonometer were >0.8. IOP as measured by iCare (mean ± SD, 11.6 ± 2.5 mmHg) was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than that measured by GAT (14.0 ± 2.8 mmHg), NCT (13.6 ± 2.5 mmHg), Tonopen XL (13.7 ± 4.1 mmHg), and Icare PRO (12.6 ± 2.2 mmHg; Bonferroni test). There was no significant difference in mean IOP among GAT, NCT, and Tonopen XL. Regarding inter-device agreement, ICC was lower between Tonopen XL and other tonometers (all ICCs < 0.4). However, ICCs of GAT, iCare, Icare PRO, and NCT showed good agreement (0.576–0.700). The Bland–Altman analysis revealed that the width of the 95% limits of agreement was larger between the Tonopen XL and the other tonometers ranged from 14.94 to 16.47 mmHg. Among the other tonometers, however, the widths of 95% limits of agreement ranged from 7.91 to 9.24 mmHg.


There was good inter-device agreement among GAT, rebound tonometers, and NCT. Tonopen XL shows the worst agreement with the other tonometers; therefore, we should pay attention to its’ respective IOP.

Clinical trial registration

Japan Clinical Trials Register; number: UMIN000011544.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Goldmann H (1955) Un nouveau tonometre d’applanation. Bull Soc Ophtalmol Fr 67:474–478

    Google Scholar 

  2. Stamper RL (2011) A history of intraocular pressure and its measurement. Optom Vis Sci 88:16–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sahin A, Basmak H, Niyaz L, Yildirim N (2007) Reproducibility and tolerability of the Icare rebound tonometer in school children. J Glaucoma 16:185–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Grigorian F, Grigorian AP, Olitsky SE (2012) The use of the Icare tonometer reduced the need for anesthesia to measure intraocular pressure in children. J AAPOS 16:508–510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nakakura S, Mori E, Yamamoto M et al (2015) Intradevice and interdevice agreement between a rebound tonometer, Icare PRO, and the Tonopen XL and Kowa Hand-held applanation tonometer when used in the sitting and supine position. J Glaucoma 24:515–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Scuderi GL, Cascone NC, Regine F et al (2011) Validity and limits of the rebound tonometer (Icare®): clinical study. Eur J Ophthalmol 21:251–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nakamura M, Darhad U, Tatsumi Y et al (2006) Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of applanation tonometers. Am J Ophthalmol 142:332–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Poostchi A, Mitchell R, Nicholas S et al (2009) The Icare rebound tonometer: comparisons with Goldmann tonometry, and influence of central corneal thickness. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 37:687–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Feng CS, Jin KW, Yi K et al (2015) Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by rebound, noncontact, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in children. Am J Ophthalmol 160:937–943

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tamçelik N, Atalay E, Cicik E et al (2015) Comparability of Icare Pro rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation and noncontact tonometer in a wide range of intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness. Ophthalmic Res 54:18–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee TE, Yoo C, Hwang JY et al (2015) Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements between Icare Pro rebound tonometer and Tono-Pen XL tonometer in supine and lateral decubitus body positions. Curr Eye Res 40:923–929

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Güler M, Bilak Ş, Bilgin B et al (2015) Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by Icare PRO rebound tonometer, Tomey FT-1000 noncontact tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometer in healthy subjects. J Glaucoma 24:613–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nakakura S, Mori E, Yamamoto M et al (2013) Intraocular pressure of supine patients using four portable tonometers. Optom Vis Sci 90:700–706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McGraw KO, Wong SP (1996) Forming inferences about some intraclass coefficients. Psychol Methods 1:30–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cook JA, Botello AP, Elders A, Surveillance of Ocular Hypertension Study Group et al (2012) Systematic review of the agreement of tonometers with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthalmology 119:1552–1557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Poostchi A, Mitchell R, Nicholas S et al (2009) The Icare rebound tonometer: comparisons with Goldmann tonometry, and influence of central corneal thickness. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 37:687–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sakamoto M, Kanamori A, Fujihara M et al (2014) Assessment of IcareONE rebound tonometer for self-measuring intraocular pressure. Acta Ophthalmol 92:243–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Moreno-Montañés J, Martínez-de-la-Casa JM, Sabater AL et al (2015) Clinical evaluation of the new rebound tonometers Icare PRO and Icare ONE compared with the Goldmann tonometer. J Glaucoma 24:527–532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Noguchi A, Nakakura S, Fujio Y et al (2016) A pilot evaluation assessing the ease of use and accuracy of the new self/home-tonometer IcareHOME in healthy young subjects. J Glaucoma 25(10):835–841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chihara E (2008) Assessment of true intraocular pressure: the gap between theory and practical data. Surv Ophthalmol 53:203–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mark HH, Robbins KP, Mark TL (2002) Axial length in applanation tonometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:504–506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wong TY, Klein BE, Klein R et al (2003) Refractive errors, intraocular pressure, and glaucoma in a white population. Ophthalmology 110:211–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Asaoka R, Nakakura S, Tabuchi H et al (2015) The relationship between Corvis ST tonometry measured corneal parameters and intraocular pressure, corneal thickness and corneal curvature. PLoS ONE 10:e0140385

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kling S, Marcos S (2013) Contributing factors to corneal deformation in air puff measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:5078–5085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Strobbe E, Cellini M, Barbaresi U et al (2014) Influence of age and gender on corneal biomechanical properties in a healthy Italian population. Cornea 33:968–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tian L, Wang D, Wu Y et al (2016) Corneal biomechanical characteristics measured by the CorVis Scheimpflug technology in eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma and normal eyes. Acta Ophthalmol 94:e317–e324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shin J, Lee JW, Kim EA, Caprioli J (2015) The effect of corneal biomechanical properties on rebound tonometer in patients with normal-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 159:144–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim NR, Kim CY, Kim H et al (2011) Comparison of Goldmann applanation tonometer, noncontact tonometer, and TonoPen XL for intraocular pressure measurement in different types of glaucomatous, ocular hypertensive, and normal eyes. Curr Eye Res 36:295–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Iwase A, Suzuki Y, Araie M et al (2004) The prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma in Japanese: the Tajimi Study. Ophthalmology 111:1641–1648

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors thank Hajime Yamakage for his valuable advice on the statistical analyses performed in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shunsuke Nakakura.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial disclosures and no conflicts of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kato, Y., Nakakura, S., Matsuo, N. et al. Agreement among Goldmann applanation tonometer, iCare, and Icare PRO rebound tonometers; non-contact tonometer; and Tonopen XL in healthy elderly subjects. Int Ophthalmol 38, 687–696 (2018).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: