The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Correlation between central corneal thickness, applanation tonometry, and direct intracameral IOP readings
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Several authors reported incorrect high intraocular pressure (IOP) values in eyes with a thick cornea using applanation tonometry. This hypothesis was checked by comparing applanation tonometry with direct intracameral manometry. METHODS: 73 patients, scheduled for intraocular surgery, were enrolled. Immediately before surgery, the following were registered: (i) central corneal thickness (CCT), (ii) applanatory IOP (Perkins/Tonopen), and (iii) intracameral IOP. RESULTS: The difference between applanatory and intraocular measurements was completely independent of CCT (y= -3.43 + 3.8x; where y is the difference between applanatory and intracamerally measured IOP (mm Hg) and x is CCT (mm); r(2) = 0.002; p = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: There is no systematic error of applanation tonometry with increasing CCT. Therefore it is inadequate to recalculate IOP based on regression formula of applanatory IOP versus CCT.
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
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.001 · Cited by 5,220
Cited by
Seddon, J. M. (2003) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.121.12.1728 · Cited by 384
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
Surveillance for ocular hypertension: an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation.
Burr, J., Botello-Pinzon, P., Takwoingi, Y., Hernández, R., Vazquez-Montes, M., Elders, A., Asaoka, R., Banister, K., van der Schoot, J., Fraser, C., et al. (2012) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta16290 · Cited by 180
Metadata
- Authors
- Feltgen, N.
- Venue
- British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2001-01-01
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 85-87
- ISSN
- 0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2119444585
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Correlation between central corneal thickness, applanation tonometry, and direct intracameral IOP readings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjo.85.1.85
- The paper
- Feltgen, N. (2001). Correlation between central corneal thickness, applanation tonometry, and direct intracameral IOP readings. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.85.1.85
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.
