RESUMEN
Purpose: To compare readings of intraocular pressure (IOP) taken with the Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), the non?contact tonometer (NCT), and the rebound tonometer (RBT), and to compare their correlation with central corneal thickness (CCT). Methods: This was a prospective, cross?sectional, observational study to which patients above 18 years of age were enrolled. A total of 400 eyes of 200 non?glaucomatous patients underwent IOP recordings using the GAT, NCT, and RBT, and CCT was also noted. Informed consent of the patients was taken. The IOP readings taken via the three methods were compared and correlated with CCT. Paired t test was used to compare the two devices. Simple and multivariate linear regression analyses were used to study the relationship between factors. A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant. Correlation was determined using the Pearson correlation coefficient, and a Bland–Altman graph was plotted. Results: Mean IOP measured by the NCT was 15.65 ± 2.80 mmHg, by the RBT was 14.23 ± 3.05 mmHg, and by the GAT was 14.69 ± 2.97 mmHg. The mean CCT was 510.61 ± 33.83 microns. The difference between mean IOP recorded by the NCT and that by the RBT was 1.41 ± 2.39 mmHg, between the NCT and GAT was 0.95 ± 2.03 mmHg, and between the GAT and RBT was 0.45 ± 2.22 mmHg. The difference between the IOP values was statistically significant (P < 0.005). All tonometers showed a statistically significant correlation with CCT, but it was observed that the NCT had a stronger correlation (0.4037). Conclusion: The IOP readings taken by all the three methods were comparable; however, RBT values were closer to GAT values. CCT did influence the IOP values, and this should be kept in mind while evaluating.
RESUMEN
Purpose: To determine the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and its risk factors among diabetic patients in the states of Madhya Pradesh (MP) and Chhattisgarh (CG). Methods: Diabetic patients were screened in the treating diabetologist/physician’s clinic by a team that included an ophthalmologist, an optometrist, and a counselor. Demographic details, diabetic control, compliance to eye checkup, awareness regarding diabetic blindness, and visual acuity were recorded using a questionnaire. DR was graded both by indirect ophthalmoscopy and fundus photo taken with a portable fundus camera. Results: In total, 602 subjects were screened across five selected locations of MP and CG. The prevalence of DR was 13.62%. No significant difference with gender was seen. The presence and grade of DR were related to age, diabetic age, and diabetic control. Conclusion: This study provides the prevalence data for DR among diabetic patients from the states of MP and CG and highlights important barriers to DR screening in our country.