Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reproducibility of ocular response analyzer measurements and their correlation with central corneal thickness

  • Glaucoma
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the inter- and intraobserver variability of ocular response analyzer (ORA) measurements, namely corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc), corneal resistance factor (CRF) and corneal hysteresis (CH).

Methods

One randomly chosen eye of 46 healthy volunteers was included in this study. Three clinical observers performed three consecutive measurements using ORA, with an interval of 1–2 minutes between measurements. In all subjects, central corneal thickness (CCT) was measured. The inter- and intraobserver reproducibility for IOPcc, CRF and CH was assessed by ANOVA-based intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV).

Results

The mean ICC for interobserver reproducibility was 0.94 for IOPcc, 0.90 for CRF, and 0.86 for CH. The corresponding CV values were 12.8%, 10.3%, and 13.6% respectively. The intraobserver ICC values for IOPcc were 0.86 for the first examiner, 0.84 for the second, and 0.89 for the third. CV was 11.7%, 11.9%, and 11.0% respectively. For CRF, the intraobserver ICC values were 0.69, 0.81, and 0.63, and corresponding CV values were 9.6%, 8.1, and 10.8%. The intraobserver ICC for CH was 0.66 for the first observer, 0.71 for the second, and 0.61 for the third examiner. The respective CV values were 12.7%, 11.8%, and 13.9%. There was a significant correlation between CCT and CRF (Rsq = 0.13, p = 0.02). The correlations of CCT with IOPcc and CH were not significant (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The interobserver reproducibility of ORA measurements was almost perfect for IOPcc, CRF, and CH. The intraobserver short-term reproducibility was almost perfect for IOPcc and substantial for CRF and CH, for all observers. The significant correlation between CCT and CRF, and no association between IOPcc and CCT, are in agreement with previous studies. There was no significant correlation between CH and CCT in our study. This device might be useful in glaucoma diagnosis and management.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Coleman AL, Miglior S (2008) Risk factors for glaucoma onset and progression. Surv Ophthalmol 53(Suppl1):S3–S10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, Parrish II RK, Wilson MR, Kass MA, for the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group (2002) The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 120:714–720

    Google Scholar 

  3. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E; Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group (2003) Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Ophthalmol 121(1):48–56

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, Parrish RK 2nd, Wilson MR, Gordon MO (2002) The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 120(6):701–713

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu J, Roberts CJ (2005) Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg 31(1):146–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Luce DA (2005) Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 31(1):156–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Whitacre MM, Stein R (1993) Sources of error with use of Goldmann-type tonometers. Surv Ophthalmol 38(1):1–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Berry V, Drance SM, Wiggins RL, Schulzer M (1966) A study of the errors of applanation tonometry and tonography on two groups of normal people. Can J Ophthalmol 1(3):213–220

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Congdon NG, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, Grover D, Quigley HA (2006) Central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis associated with glaucoma damage. Am J Ophthalmol 141:868–875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Francis BA, Hsieh A, Lai MY, Chopra V, Pena F, Azen S, Varma R (2007) Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Ophthalmology 114(1):20–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Boehm AG, Weber A, Pillunat LE, Koch R, Spoerl E (2008) Dynamic contour tonometry in comparison to intracameral IOP measurements. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49(6):2472–2477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barleon L, Hoffmann 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(4):583–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pelit A, Altan-Yaycioglu R, Pelit A, Akova YA (2009) Effect of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurements with the Pascal dynamic contour, Canon TX-10 non-contact and Goldmann applanation tonometers in healthy subjects. Clin Exp Optom 92(1):14–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ko YC, Liu CJ, Hsu WM (2005) Varying effects of corneal thickness on intraocular pressure measurements with different tonometers. Eye (Lond) 19(3):327–332

    Google Scholar 

  15. Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Cunliffe I, Mantry S (2006) The use of the Reichert ocular response analyser to establish the relationship between ocular hysteresis, corneal resistance factor and central corneal thickness in normal eyes. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 29(5):257–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moreno-Montanes J, Maldonado MJ, Garcia N, Mendiluce L, Garcia-Gomez PJ, Segui-Gomez M (2008) Reproducibility and clinical relevance of the ocular response analyzer in nonoperated eyes: corneal biomechanical and tonometric implications. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49(3):968–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Medeiros FA, Weinreb RB (2006) Evaluation of the Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on the intraocular pressure measurements using the Ocular Response Analyzer. J Glaucoma 15:364–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:321–325

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stalmans I, Harris A, Vanbellinghen V, Zeyen T, Siesky B (2008) Ocular pulse amplitude in normal tension and primary open angle glaucoma. J Glaucoma 17(5):403–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kynigopoulos M, Schlote T, Kotecha A, Tzamalis A, Pajic B, Haefliger I (2008) Repeatability of intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanical properties measurements by the ocular response analyser. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 225(5):357–360

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Oncel B, Dinc UA, Gorgun E, Yalvaç BI (2009) Diurnal variation of corneal biomechanics and intraocular pressure in normal subject. Eur J Ophthalmol 19(5):798–803

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shah S, Laiquzzaman M, Yeung I, Pan X, Roberts C (2009) The use of the Ocular Response Analyser to determine corneal hysteresis in eyes before and after excimer laser refractive surgery. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 32(3):123–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ehlers N, Branson T, Sperling S (1975) Applanation tonometrie and corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol 53:34–43

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Iester M, Mete M, Figus M, Frezzotti P (2009) Incorporating corneal pachymetry into the management of glaucoma. J Cataract Refract Surg 35(9):1623–1628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Doughty MJ, Zaman ML (2000) Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol 44(5):367–408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, Parrish RK 2nd, Wilson MR, Kass MA (2002) The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 120(6):714–720

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sullivan-Mee M, Gerhardt G, Halverson KD, Qualls C (2009) Repeatibility and reproducibility for intraocular pressure measurement by dynamic contour, ocular response analyzer, and goldmann applanation tonometry. J Glaucoma 18(9):666–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Fernandez-Vidal A, Mendez-Hernandez C, Garcia-Sanchez J (2006) Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47(10):4410–4414

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology of the University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany

    Joanna Wasielica-Poslednik, Fatmire Berisha, Shakhsanam Aliyeva, Norbert Pfeiffer & Esther M. Hoffmann

Authors
  1. Joanna Wasielica-Poslednik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fatmire Berisha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shakhsanam Aliyeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Norbert Pfeiffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Esther M. Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna Wasielica-Poslednik.

Additional information

The Authors have no financial interests to declare.

The authors have full control of all primary data, and they agree to allow Graefe´s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology to review their data upon request.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wasielica-Poslednik, J., Berisha, F., Aliyeva, S. et al. Reproducibility of ocular response analyzer measurements and their correlation with central corneal thickness. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248, 1617–1622 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1471-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-010-1471-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation