DESIGN: A cross-sectional, non-interventional study.
METHODS: The IOP measurements by handheld Icare rebound tonometer (Finland) were first performed by a primary care physician. Then the IOP was measured using Perkins Mk3 applanation tonometer (Haag-Streit, UK) by an ophthalmologist who was masked to previous readings from the Icare rebound tonometer. The mean IOP measured by each tonometer was compared. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to explore the correlation between the IOP measurements of the 2 instruments. The level of agreement between them was assessed using the Bland and Altman method.
RESULTS: A total of 420 left eyes were examined. The mean age of subjects was 38.6 ± 18.2 years. Approximately 67% of subjects were female. The mean IOP was 16.3 ± 4.0 mm Hg using Icare and 13.4 ± 2.3 mm Hg using PAT. Pearson correlation coefficient showed a moderate positive correlation between the 2 methods (r = +0.524, P < 0.001). Linear regression analysis revealed a slope of 0.28 with R² of 0.255. The mean difference between the 2 methods was 2.90 ± 3.5 mm Hg and the sample t-test revealed a statistically significant mean difference from 0 (P < 0.001). The 95% limits of agreement between the 2 methods were between -9.73 and 3.93 mm Hg.
CONCLUSIONS: The handheld Icare rebound tonometer is a reasonably acceptable screening tool in community practices. However, Icare overestimated IOP with a mean of 2.90 mm Hg higher than the PAT. Thus, using Goldmann applanation tonometer as a confirmatory measurement tool of IOP is suggested.
METHODS: We measured psychophysical contrast thresholds in one eye of 16 control subjects and 19 patients aged 67.8 ± 5.65 and 71.9 ± 7.15, respectively, (mean ± SD). Patients ranged in disease severity from suspects to severe glaucoma. We used the 17-region FDT-perimeter C20-threshold program and a custom 9-region test (R9) with similar visual field coverage. The R9 stimuli scaled their spatial frequencies with eccentricity and were modulated at lower temporal frequencies than C20 and thus did not display a clear spatial frequency-doubling (FD) appearance. Based on the overlapping areas of the stimuli, we transformed the C20 results to 9 measures for direct comparison with R9. We also compared mfVEP-based and psychophysical contrast thresholds in 26 younger (26.6 ± 7.3 y, mean ± SD) and 20 older normal control subjects (66.5 ± 7.3 y) control subjects using the R9 stimuli.
RESULTS: The best intraclass correlations between R9/C20 thresholds were for the central and outer regions: 0.82 ± 0.05 (mean ± SD, p ≤ 0.0001). The areas under receiver operator characteristic plots for C20 and R9 were as high as 0.99 ± 0.012 (mean ± SE). Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) showed significant correlation (r = 0.638, p = 0.029) with 1 dimension of the C20 and R9 data, suggesting that the lower and higher temporal frequency tests probed the same neural mechanism(s). Low signal quality made the contrast-threshold mfVEPs non-viable. The resulting mfVEP thresholds were limited by noise to artificially high contrasts, which unlike the psychophysical versions, were not correlated with age.
CONCLUSION: The lower temporal frequency R9 stimuli had similar diagnostic power to the FDT-C20 stimuli. CCA indicated the both stimuli drove similar neural mechanisms, possibly suggesting no advantage of FD stimuli for mfVEPs. Given that the contrast-threshold mfVEPs were non-viable, we used the present and published results to make recommendations for future mfVEP tests.
METHODS: Diurnal variation of intraocular pressure was measured in 202 eyes of suspected open-angle glaucoma patients and 100 control eyes, at 4-hourly intervals for 24 hours (phasing). Based on the phasing results, optic disc changes and visual field defects, the patients were diagnosed as primary open angle glaucoma (POAG), normal tension glaucoma (NTG), ocular hypertension (OHT), or physiologic cup (PC), or still remained as glaucoma suspects due to inconclusive diagnosis. The last group (glaucoma suspects) was then followed up 6-monthly for their eventual outcome.
RESULTS: The highest percentage of suspected glaucoma patients had peak (maximum) readings in the mid-morning (10-11 A.M.) and trough (minimum) readings after midnight (2-3 A.M.); the highest percentage of control group had peak readings in the late evening (6-7 P.M.) and trough readings after midnight (2-3 A.M.). The mean amplitude of variance was 6 mm Hg in suspected glaucoma group and 4 mm Hg in the control group. After 'phasing', 18.8% of the suspected glaucoma patients were diagnosed as POAG, 16.8% as NTG, 5% as OHT, and 28.7% as physiologic cup; 30.9% remained as glaucoma suspects. After 4 years follow-up, 70% of the glaucoma suspects still remained as glaucoma suspects, 6.7% developed NTG and another 6.7% POAG; 16.6% were normal.
CONCLUSIONS: Serial measurement of IOP ( phasing) in a 24-hour period is still needed, in order not to miss the peak and the trough IOP readings in suspected open-angle glaucoma patients, which helps in better management of glaucoma. Among 30.9% of patients who remained as glaucoma suspects after the initial phasing, 13.4% developed NTG/POAG over a period of 4 years.
METHOD: A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the potential impact of isometric exercise on IOP and OPP. The literature on the relationship between isometric resistance exercise and IOP was systematically searched according to the "Cochrane Handbook" in the databases of Pubmed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Scopus through December 31, 2020. The search terms used were "exercise," "train," "isometric," "intraocular pressure," and "ocular perfusion pressure," and the mean differences of the data were analyzed using the Stata 16.0 software, with a 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS: A total of 13 studies, which included 268 adult participants consisting of 162 men and 106 women, were selected. All the exercise programs that were included were isometric resistance exercises of the lower limbs with intervention times of 1min, 2min, or 6min. The increase in IOP after intervention was as follows: I2=87.1%, P=0.001 using random-effects model combined statistics, SMD=1.03 (0.48, 1.59), and the increase in OPP was as follows: I2=94.5%, P=0.001 using random-effects model combined statistics, SMD=2.94 (1.65, 4.22), with both results showing high heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION: As isometric exercise may cause an increase in IOP and OPP, therefore, people with glaucoma and related high risk should perform isometric exercise with caution.