The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: Quantitative analysis
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand and quantify intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement errors introduced by corneal variables during applanation tonometry using a cornea biomechanical model. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Biomedical Engineering Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. METHODS: The model assumed an overall resultant pressure that was based on the summation of the applanation pressure, the true IOP, and the surface tension caused by the tear film to determine the final deformation of the corneal apex during IOP measurement. Corneal resistance was varied according to the cornea's biomechanical properties, thickness, and curvature, and the effect of each variable on the accuracy of IOP tonometry readings was examined quantitatively. RESULTS: The model demonstrated that tonometry readings do not always reflect true IOP values. They deviate when corneal thickness, curvature, or biomechanical properties vary from normal values. Based on the model, predicted IOP readings have a 2.87 mm Hg range resulting from the variation in the corneal thickness in the normal population and a 1.76 mm Hg range from the variation in the corneal radius of curvature. Considering that Young's modulus of the corneal varies from 0.1 to 0.9 MPa in the normal population, the model predicts tonometry IOP readings will have a range of 17.26 mm Hg because of the variation in this corneal biomechanical parameter alone. CONCLUSIONS: The simulation based on the model demonstrated quantitatively that variations in each corneal variable cause errors in tonometry IOP readings. The simulation results indicate that differences in corneal biomechanics across individuals may have greater impact on IOP measurement errors than corneal thickness or curvature.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Advances of flexible pressure sensors toward artificial intelligence and health care applications
Zang, Y., Zhang, F., Di, C.-A., & Zhu, D. (2015) · Materials Horizons · doi:10.1039/c4mh00147h · Cited by 1,272
Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Preferred Practice Pattern®
Gedde, S. J., Vinod, K., Wright, M. M., Muir, K. W., Lind, J. T., Chen, P. P., Li, T., & Mansberger, S. L. (2021) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.10.022 · Cited by 474
Pepose, J. S., Feigenbaum, S. K., Qazi, M. A., Sanderson, J. P., & Roberts, C. J. (2007) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2006.09.036 · Cited by 369
Self-citationFull-field deformation of bovine cornea under constrained inflation conditions
Boyce, B. L., Grazier, J. M., Jones, R. E., & Nguyen, T. D. (2008) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.06.011 · Cited by 191
Noninvasive intraocular pressure monitoring: Current insights
De Smedt, S. (2015) · Clinical ophthalmology · doi:10.2147/opth.s53772 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, J., & Roberts, C. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 146-155
- ISSN
- 0146-2776 (ISSN-L)
- 0886-3350
- OpenAlex
- W132470377
- Cited by
- 753
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: Quantitative analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.09.031
- The paper
- Liu, J., & Roberts, C. J. (2005). Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: Quantitative analysis. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.09.031
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.