Comparison of three methods of intraocular pressure measurement and their relation to central corneal thickness.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability of the 'gold standard' Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT), with that of the ocular response analyser (ORA), and the dynamic contour tonometer (DCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 694 subjects were recruited to participate from the TwinsUK (UK Adult Twin Registry) at St Thomas' Hospital, London. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured using GAT, ORA, and the DCT. The agreement between the three methods was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. Repeatability coefficients and coefficient of variation between first and second readings of the same eye were used to assess reliability. RESULTS: Mean age was 57.5 years (SD, 13.1; range, 16.1-88.5). The mean IOPs, calculated using the mean of two readings from the right eye were as follows: Goldmann (GAT), 14.1+/-2.8 mm Hg; IOPg (ORA), 15.9+/-3.2 mm Hg; IOPcc (ORA), 16.6+/-3.2 mm Hg; and DCT, 16.9+/-2.7 mm Hg. The 95% limits of agreement were for ORA (IOPcc): GAT, -2.07 to 7.18 mm Hg; for DCT: GAT, -0.49 to 6.21 mm Hg; and for DCT: ORA (IOPcc), -3.01 to 4.85 mm Hg. Coefficients of variation for the three tonometers were GAT, 8.3%; ORA, 8.2%; DCT, 6.3%. The repeatability coefficients were 3.4 mm Hg for GAT, 3.57 mm Hg for ORA and 3.09 mm Hg for DCT. GAT and ORA (IOPg) readings showed a positive correlation with central corneal thickness (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: This study found similar reliability in all three tonometers. Bland-Altman plots showed the three instruments to have 95% limits of agreement outside the generally accepted limits, which means they are not interchangeable. GAT measurements were found to be significantly lower than the two newer instruments.

Heritability of intraocular pressure: a classical twin study.

AIMS: To estimate the heritability of intraocular pressure (IOP) by performing a classical twin study and to determine whether the use of different instruments influences calculation of eye IOP heritability. METHODS: Twin pairs were recruited to participate from the TwinsUK Adult Twin Registry at St. Thomas' Hospital London. IOP was measured using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). A subset of twins also had their IOP measured using the Ocular Response Analyser (ORA; Reichert, Buffalo, NY) and the Dynamic Contour Tonometer (DCT, Pascal; Swiss Microtechnology AG, Port, Switzerland). We compared the covariance of IOP within monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) pairs using genetic modelling techniques to determine the relative contribution of genes and environment to the variation in IOP seen in this population. RESULTS: Data for 422 twin pairs (211 MZ; 211 DZ) were analysed. The mean IOP for GAT was 15.4 (SD 2.7) mm Hg (range: 8.7-26.2 mm Hg). The MZ correlations were significantly higher than DZ for IOP measured by GAT, DCT and ORA (correlation coefficients: GAT: 0.57:0.39, DCT: 0.62:0.36, Goldmann-correlated ORA (IOPg) 0.73:0.47, for MZ:DZ twins, respectively). Modelling suggested heritability for GAT IOP of 0.62, with individual environmental factors accounting for 0.38 of the variation. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that genetic effects are important in determining IOP in this twin population. IOP readings differed depending upon the instrument used, and this resulted in different heritability values; genetic factors explained 62%, 63% and 74% of the variation in IOP using GAT, DCT and ORA IOPg, respectively. Environmental factors determined the remainder of the variation.