Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9866522

Tonometry.

W L Ottar
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Tonometry is the measure of intraocular pressure. There are several methods used to obtain intraocular pressure, such as Goldmann applanation tonometry, Tono-Pen tonometry, pneumotonometry, and tactile tension. All these methods have advantages and disadvantages. Measurement of intraocular pressure plays an important role in the detection and management of glaucomatous conditions. It is important that the examiner be aware of the various methods and their shortcomings to obtain the most accurate measurement. By obtaining the most accurate intraocular pressure by tonometry, the diagnosis and management of glaucoma can be enhanced.

Explore related subjects

BiasGlaucomaHumansInfection ControlTonometry, OcularJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W L Ottar. 1998. Tonometry.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-135x(98)90004-5

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2000

Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses.

For meta-analysis, substantial uncertainty remains about the most appropriate statistical methods for combining the results of separate trials. An important issue for meta-analysis is how to incorporate heterogeneity, defined as variation among the results of individual trials beyond that expected from chance, into summary estimates of treatment effect. Another consideration is which 'metric' to use to measure treatment effect; for trials with binary outcomes, there are several possible metrics, including the odds ratio (a relative measure) and risk difference (an absolute measure). To examine empirically how assessment of treatment effect and heterogeneity may differ when different methods are utilized, we studied 125 meta-analyses representative of those performed by clinical investigators. There was no meta-analysis in which the summary risk difference and odds ratio were discrepant to the extent that one indicated significant benefit while the other indicated significant harm. Further, for most meta-analyses, summary odds ratios and risk differences agreed in statistical significance, leading to similar conclusions about whether treatments affected outcome. Heterogeneity was common regardless of whether treatment effects were measured by odds ratios or risk differences. However, risk differences usually displayed more heterogeneity than odds ratios. Random effects estimates, which incorporate heterogeneity, tended to be less precisely estimated than fixed effects estimates. We present two exceptions to these observations, which derive from the weights assigned to individual trial estimates. We discuss the implications of these findings for selection of a metric for meta-analysis and incorporation of heterogeneity into summary estimates. Published in 2000 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Bias↗
PubMed2000

Summarizing the predictive power of a generalized linear model.

This paper studies summary measures of the predictive power of a generalized linear model, paying special attention to a generalization of the multiple correlation coefficient from ordinary linear regression. The population value is the correlation between the response and its conditional expectation given the predictors, and the sample value is the correlation between the observed response and the model predicted value. We compare four estimators of the measure in terms of bias, mean squared error and behaviour in the presence of overparameterization. The sample estimator and a jack-knife estimator usually behave adequately, but a cross-validation estimator has a large negative bias with large mean squared error. One can use bootstrap methods to construct confidence intervals for the population value of the correlation measure and to estimate the degree to which a model selection procedure may provide an overly optimistic measure of the actual predictive power.

Bias↗