Next Article in Journal
Interplay Between Type 2 Diabetes Susceptibility and Prostate Cancer Progression: Functional Insights into C2CD4A
Previous Article in Journal
New-Onset Graves’ Ophthalmopathy After Treatment with Pembrolizumab: A Case Report and a Review of the Literature
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Agreement and Clinical Utility of the Easytone Transpalpebral Tonometer Compared with Goldmann Applanation, Tono-Pen, and Icare in Healthy Eyes

1
Department of Ophthalmology, Zeynep Kamıl Gynecology and Pedıatrıcs Educatıon and Research Hospıtal, 34668 Istanbul, Turkey
2
Department of Ophthalmology, Goztepe Prof. Dr. Süleyman Yalçin City Hospital, 34668 Istanbul, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2025, 15(21), 2766; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15212766 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 3 September 2025 / Revised: 17 October 2025 / Accepted: 28 October 2025 / Published: 31 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Point-of-Care Diagnostics and Devices)

Abstract

Objective: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained using the Easytone Transpalpebral Tonometer (ETT) with the Icare 200 (IC200), Tonopen AVIA (TPA), and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT) in healthy individuals. Methods: Fifty-eight right eyes of 58 healthy volunteers underwent IOP measurement with all four devices. Three consecutive readings were taken per device and averaged. Two masked observers performed all measurements. Agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland–Altman analysis, and repeated-measures ANOVA compared mean IOP values. Results: Mean IOP values were 15.18 ± 1.88 mmHg (ETT), 14.45 ± 2.24 mmHg (TPA), 13.38 ± 2.65 mmHg (IC200), and 14.33 ± 2.03 mmHg (GAT) (p < 0.001). ETT provided significantly higher values than IC200, TPA, and GAT, while IC200 underestimated IOP compared with TPA and GAT. No difference was observed between TPA and GAT. Inter-observer agreement was excellent (ICC 0.805–1.000). Agreement analysis showed weaker ICC values for ETT–TPA (0.642) and ETT–IC200 (0.615). Bland–Altman plots confirmed the closest agreement between GAT and TPA, and the poorest agreement between ETT and IC200. Conclusions: ETT tends to overestimate and IC200 to underestimate IOP compared with GAT. TPA demonstrated the closest agreement with GAT and may be the most reliable alternative in clinical practice. ETT can be useful when applanation is not feasible, but its limited agreement should be considered.
Keywords: intraocular pressure; Easytone Transpalpebral Tonometer; Goldmann Applanation Tonometer; Tonopen AVIA; Icare 200 intraocular pressure; Easytone Transpalpebral Tonometer; Goldmann Applanation Tonometer; Tonopen AVIA; Icare 200

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kizilay, O.; Karaca, S.; Celik, G.; Yilmaz, O.F. Agreement and Clinical Utility of the Easytone Transpalpebral Tonometer Compared with Goldmann Applanation, Tono-Pen, and Icare in Healthy Eyes. Diagnostics 2025, 15, 2766. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15212766

AMA Style

Kizilay O, Karaca S, Celik G, Yilmaz OF. Agreement and Clinical Utility of the Easytone Transpalpebral Tonometer Compared with Goldmann Applanation, Tono-Pen, and Icare in Healthy Eyes. Diagnostics. 2025; 15(21):2766. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15212766

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kizilay, Osman, Serap Karaca, Gokhan Celik, and Omer Faruk Yilmaz. 2025. "Agreement and Clinical Utility of the Easytone Transpalpebral Tonometer Compared with Goldmann Applanation, Tono-Pen, and Icare in Healthy Eyes" Diagnostics 15, no. 21: 2766. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15212766

APA Style

Kizilay, O., Karaca, S., Celik, G., & Yilmaz, O. F. (2025). Agreement and Clinical Utility of the Easytone Transpalpebral Tonometer Compared with Goldmann Applanation, Tono-Pen, and Icare in Healthy Eyes. Diagnostics, 15(21), 2766. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15212766

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop