International comparisons of intraocular pressures, as measured by Tono-Pen and Goldmann applanation tonometry, in healthy adults: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Investigate intraocular pressure (IOP), as measured by Tono-Pen (TP) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT), in healthy adults. Provide an updated synthesis of multinational, primary studies, reported during the 10-year period 2011 to 2021 and offer an evidence-based benchmark, against which IOP can be evaluated across subject variables and pathologies. Three primary research questions are investigated: Is there a statistically significant difference between IOP measured by TP and GAT? If yes, is the difference clinically significant? Is measurement of IOP affected by the country or setting location, in which the measurements are made? Methods: An aggregate meta-analysis was conducted on 22 primary studies, from 15 different countries. IOP measurements were made from each healthy adult subject, with both the TP and GAT. Primary studies were identified and data extracted according to recommended preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis protocol guidelines. Meta-analysis summary results are reported as the point estimate of the raw mean difference of IOP. Results: Meta-analysis reveals a statistically significant difference in raw mean differences in IOP, when measured by TP and GAT, in the healthy adult population. Tono-Pen IOP measurements are higher than GAT IOP measurements. The point estimate for the summary effect size = −0.73 mm Hg, P = .03. The prediction interval for the true effect size, in 95% of all comparable populations, is −4.03 to 2.58 mm Hg. There is no clinically significance difference in IOP when measured by TP and GAT. Meta-regression analysis reveals statistically significant differences in measurement of IOP by countries, R 2 analog = 0.75, P = .001. There is no statistically significant difference in measurement of IOP as a function of measurement location setting, R 2 analog = −0.17, P = .65. Conclusions: IOP measured by TP are marginally higher compared to GAT, in the healthy adult population. However, from a clinical practice perspective, TP and GAT produce similar IOP measurements. There is evidence of significant variabilities in IOP measurements as a function of country. IOP measurements collected in a research laboratory setting are similar to IOP collected in a clinical setting. Results have implications for the primary care physician requiring a portable, inexpensive, reliable, and easily administered instrument to assess IOP.