Conflict/competing interest: No stated conflict of interest.
Diaton tonometry: an assessment of validity and preference against Goldmann tonometry
Version of Record online: 2 SEP 2011
© 2011 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology © 2011 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists
Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology
Volume 40, Issue 4, pages e171–e175, May/June 2012
How to Cite
Doherty, M. D., Carrim, Z. I. and O'Neill, D. P. (2012), Diaton tonometry: an assessment of validity and preference against Goldmann tonometry. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, 40: e171–e175. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2011.02636.x
Funding sources: No specific funding.
- Issue online: 14 JUN 2012
- Version of Record online: 2 SEP 2011
- Accepted manuscript online: 30 JUN 2011 01:30PM EST
- Received 7 February 2011; accepted 29 May 2011.
- Goldmann applanation tonometry;
- intraocular pressure
Background: To assess agreement between the Diaton, a new transpalpebral tonometer, and Goldmann applanation tonometry, the accepted gold standard.
Design: Comparative study of two devices in a hospital setting.
Participants: Two hundred and fifty-one patients attending the eye casualty and general ophthalmology clinics at St James' University Hospital, Leeds between February and December 2009.
Methods: Intraocular pressure was measured using Goldmann applanation tonometry and Diaton tonometry by one examining ophthalmologist. Patient preference for either technique was also recorded.
Main Outcome Measures: Intraocular pressure measured by Diaton was compared with intraocular pressure measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry. Limits of agreement were determined using the Bland-Altman method.
Results: Two hundred and fifty right eyes underwent both Goldmann applanation tonometry and Diaton tonometry. Mean intraocular pressure was 13.8 ± 3.6 mmHg using Goldmann applanation tonometry and 13.2 ± 4.3 mmHg using Diaton tonometry. Upper and lower limits of agreement were +8.4 mmHg and −9.6 mmHg, respectively. Order of intraocular pressure measurement and positioning did not influence limits of agreement in a clinically significant manner. Overall, more patients expressed preference for Diaton tonometry (40.2%) than Goldmann applanation tonometry (30.3%). Those aged 50 or less were more likely to prefer Diaton tonometry.
Conclusions: The Diaton tonometer is portable, lightweight, user-friendly and well tolerated by patients. However, it shows poor agreement with Goldmann applanation tonometry, thereby precluding it from being regarded as a substitute in routine clinical practice.