Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Comparative evaluation of current ophthalmodynamometers.

J T Holladay, J B Arnoult, R S Ruiz

    American Journal of Ophthalmology
    |May 1, 1979
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Monocanalicular lacrimonasal intubation.

    Journal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus·2014
    Same author

    Analysis of aggregate surgically induced refractive change, prediction error, and intraocular astigmatism.

    Journal of cataract and refractive surgery·2001
    Same author

    International Intraocular Lens & Implant Registry.

    Journal of cataract and refractive surgery·2001
    Same author

    Prevalence of mutations causing retinitis pigmentosa and other inherited retinopathies.

    Human mutation·2001
    Same author

    Efficacy of preoperative versus postoperative ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% in reducing inflammation after cataract surgery.

    Journal of cataract and refractive surgery·2000
    Same author

    The Houston Vision Assessment Test (HVAT): an assessment of validity. The Cataract Outcome Study Group.

    Ophthalmic epidemiology·2000
    Same journal

    Reply to Comment on Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma Patients with Delayed Follow-Up.

    American journal of ophthalmology·2026
    Same journal

    Comment on: "Safety and efficiency reducing retinopathy of prematurity guideline sensitivity: an external validation using a large US-based dataset".

    American journal of ophthalmology·2026
    Same journal

    Reply to Comment on "Clinicopathological and Imaging Distinction Between Ocular Adnexal MALT Lymphoma and IgG4-Related Ophthalmic Disease".

    American journal of ophthalmology·2026
    Same journal

    Comment on: Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma Patients With Delayed Follow-Up.

    American journal of ophthalmology·2026
    Same journal

    Corneal sensitivity changes and nerve plexus abnormalities in noninfectious anterior uveitis.

    American journal of ophthalmology·2026
    Same journal

    Role of Menopausal Hormone Therapy on Strabismus, Strabismus Surgery, and Reoperation Rates.

    American journal of ophthalmology·2026
    See all related articles

    Ophthalmodynamometers showed significant differences in measuring ophthalmic artery pressure. Recommended confidence levels are +/- 15% for ophthalmic to brachial artery pressure ratio and 10% for eye pressure differences.

    Area of Science:

    • Ophthalmology
    • Biomedical Engineering
    • Cardiovascular Physiology

    Background:

    • Accurate measurement of ophthalmic artery pressure is crucial for diagnosing and monitoring various ocular and systemic conditions.
    • Existing ophthalmodynamometers exhibit variability in measurements, necessitating an evaluation of their performance and reliability.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To compare the measurements obtained from four commonly used ophthalmodynamometers in a cohort of young, healthy individuals.
    • To determine acceptable confidence limits for ophthalmic artery pressure measurements and inter-eye pressure differences.

    Main Methods:

    • Seventy-five patients under 40 without prior ocular, cardiovascular, or cerebrovascular disease were enrolled.
    • Measurements were taken using four different ophthalmodynamometers.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Ophthalmic artery pressure, ophthalmic to brachial artery pressure ratio, and inter-eye pressure differences were analyzed.

    • Main Results:

    • Significant differences were observed in absolute pressure values and the ophthalmic to brachial artery pressure ratio between instruments.
    • Standard deviations for measurements were comparable, ranging from 8.1% to 10.2%.
    • Average inter-eye pressure differences ranged from 3.6% (Galin unit) to 6.7% (Sisler unit).

    Conclusions:

    • Established confidence limits of +/- 15% for the ophthalmic to brachial artery pressure ratio and 10% for inter-eye pressure differences are proposed for 95% confidence levels.
    • A correlation exists between the ocular coefficient of rigidity and pressure discrepancies between direct and indirect measurement methods.