Abstract
Although several factors are known to play a role in the development and progression of glaucoma, intraocular pressure (IOP) remains the only modifiable risk factor. Medical and surgical treatments for glaucoma both aim to reduce IOP to minimize disease progression. Tonometry is therefore an essential element of the ophthalmological exam. There are several types of tonometers available currently. These range from well-established instruments that have been in clinical use for decades to new devices, which are the result of recent technological advances. The various instruments have advantages and disadvantages that affect their suitability for a given setting, purpose, and patient population. In this review, we aim to describe the most commonly available tonometers today along with their advantages, disadvantages, and applicability.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Levin LA, Nilsson SFE, Ver Hoeve J, Wu S, Kaufman PL, Alm A. Adler’s physiology of the eye: expert consult. London: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2011.
Tham Y-C, Li X, Wong TY, Quigley HA, Aung T, Cheng C-Y. Global prevalence of glaucoma and projections of glaucoma burden through 2040: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:2081–90.
Sommer A, Tielsch JM, Katz J, Quigley HA, Gottsch JD, Javitt J, et al. Relationship between intraocular pressure and primary open angle glaucoma among white and black Americans. The Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:1090–5.
Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol Chic Ill 1960. 2002;120:701–13.
Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Komaroff E. Factors for progression and glaucoma treatment: the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15:102–6.
Goldmann H, Schmidt T. [Applanation tonometry]. Ophthalmol J Int Ophtalmol Int J Ophthalmol Z Augenheilkd. 1957;134:221–42.
Stamper RL. A history of intraocular pressure and its measurement. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88:E16–28.
Kass MA. Standardizing the measurement of intraocular pressure for clinical research. Guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:183–5.
Farhood QK. Comparative evaluation of intraocular pressure with an air-puff tonometer versus a Goldmann applanation tonometer. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl Nz. 2013;7:23–7.
Dielemans I, Vingerling JR, Hofman A, Grobbee DE, de Jong PT. Reliability of intraocular pressure measurement with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in epidemiological studies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol. 1994;232:141–4.
Phelps CD, Phelps GK. Measurement of intraocular pressure: a study of its reproducibility. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Für Klin Exp Ophthalmol. 1976;198:39–43.
Tonnu P-A, Ho T, Sharma K, White E, Bunce C, Garway-Heath D. A comparison of four methods of tonometry: method agreement and interobserver variability. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:847–50.
Herndon LW, Choudhri SA, Cox T, Damji KF, Shields MB, Allingham RR. Central corneal thickness in normal, glaucomatous, and ocular hypertensive eyes. Arch Ophthalmol Chic Ill 1960. 1997;115:1137–41.
Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S. Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1975;53:34–43.
Shah S, Chatterjee A, Mathai M, Kelly SP, Kwartz J, Henson D, et al. Relationship between corneal thickness and measured intraocular pressure in a general ophthalmology clinic1. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:2154–60.
Foster PJ, Machin D, Wong T-Y, Ng T-P, Kirwan JF, Johnson GJ, et al. Determinants of intraocular pressure and its association with glaucomatous optic neuropathy in Chinese Singaporeans: the Tanjong Pagar Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3885–91.
Foster PJ, Baasanhu J, Alsbirk PH, Munkhbayar D, Uranchimeg D, Johnson GJ. Central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure in a Mongolian population. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:969–73.
Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement: quantitative analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:146–55.
Poostchi A, Mitchell R, Nicholas S, Purdie G, Wells A. The iCare rebound tonometer: comparisons with Goldmann tonometry, and influence of central corneal thickness. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;37:687–91.
Kim KN, Jeoung JW, Park KH, Yang MK, Kim DM. Comparison of the new rebound tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in a clinical setting. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 2013;91:e392–396.
Sandhu SS, Chattopadhyay S, Birch MK, Ray-Chaudhuri N. Frequency of goldmann applanation tonometer calibration error checks. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:215–8.
Arora R, Bellamy H, Austin M. Applanation tonometry: a comparison of the Perkins handheld and Goldmann slit lamp-mounted methods. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl Nz. 2014;8:605–10.
Shields MB. The non-contact tonometer. Its value and limitations. Surv Ophthalmol. 1980;24:211–9.
Yilmaz I, Altan C, Aygit ED, Alagoz C, Baz O, Ahmet S, et al. Comparison of three methods of tonometry in normal subjects: Goldmann applanation tonometer, non-contact airpuff tonometer, and Tono-Pen XL. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl Nz. 2014;8:1069–74.
Parker VA, Herrtage J, Sarkies NJ. Clinical comparison of the Keeler Pulsair 3000 with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:1303–4.
Jorge J, Díaz-Rey JA, González-Méijome JM, Almeida JB, Parafita MA. Clinical performance of the Reichert AT550: a new non-contact tonometer. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt J Br Coll Ophthalmic Opt Optom. 2002;22:560–4.
Jorge J, González-Méijome JM, Díaz-Rey JA, Almeida JB, Ribeiro P, Parafita MA. Clinical performance of non-contact tonometry by Reichert AT550 in glaucomatous patients. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt J Br Coll Ophthalmic Opt Optom. 2003;23:503–6.
Domke N, Hager A, Wiegand W. [Intraocular pressure and corneal thickness. A comparison between non-contact tonometry and applanation tonometry]. Ophthalmol Z Dtsch Ophthalmol Ges. 2006;103:583–7.
Tonnu P-A, Ho T, Newson T, El Sheikh A, Sharma K, White E, et al. The influence of central corneal thickness and age on intraocular pressure measured by pneumotonometry, non-contact tonometry, the Tono-Pen XL, and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:851–4.
Kaushik S, Pandav SS. Ocular response analyzer. J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2012;6:17–9.
Sullivan-Mee M, Billingsley SC, Patel AD, Halverson KD, Alldredge BR, Qualls C. Ocular response analyzer in subjects with and without glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci Publ Am Acad Optom. 2008;85:463–70.
De Moraes CGV, Prata TS, Liebmann J, Ritch R. Modalities of tonometry and their accuracy with respect to corneal thickness and irregularities. J Optom. 2008;1:43–9.
Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:156–62.
De Moraes CVG, Hill V, Tello C, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Lower corneal hysteresis is associated with more rapid glaucomatous visual field progression. J Glaucoma. 2012;21:209–13.
Medeiros FA, Freitas D, Lisboa R, Kuang T-M, Zangwill LM, Weinreb RN. Corneal hysteresis as a risk factor for glaucoma progression: a prospective longitudinal study. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1533–40.
Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Fernandez-Vidal A, Mendez-Hernandez C, Garcia-Sanchez J. Ocular response analyzer versus Goldmann applanation tonometry for intraocular pressure measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:4410–4.
Kynigopoulos M, Schlote T, Kotecha A, Tzamalis A, Pajic B, Haefliger I. Repeatability of intraocular pressure and corneal biomechanical properties measurements by the ocular response analyser. Klin Mon Augenheilkd. 2008;225:357–60.
Hager A, Annette H, Loge K, Kristina L, Schroeder B, Bernd S, et al. Effect of central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis on tonometry as measured by dynamic contour tonometry, ocular response analyzer, and Goldmann tonometry in glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma. 2008;17:361–5.
Kotecha A, White E, Schlottmann PG, Garway-Heath DF. Intraocular pressure measurement precision with the Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometers. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:730–7.
Lim T-C, Chattopadhyay S, Acharya UR. A survey and comparative study on the instruments for glaucoma detection. Med Eng Phys. 2012;34:129–39.
Scibilia GD, Ehlers WH, Donshik PC. The effects of therapeutic contact lenses on intraocular pressure measurement. J Publ Contact Lens Assoc Ophthalmol Inc. 1996;22:262–5.
Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Brusini P. Comparisons between Pascal dynamic contour tonometry, the TonoPen, and Goldmann applanation tonometry in patients with glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85:272–9.
Mollan SP, Wolffsohn JS, Nessim M, Laiquzzaman M, Sivakumar S, Hartley S, et al. Accuracy of Goldmann, ocular response analyser, Pascal and TonoPen XL tonometry in keratoconic and normal eyes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:1661–5.
Geyer O, Mayron Y, Loewenstein A, Neudorfer M, Rothkoff L, Lazar M. Tono-Pen tonometry in normal and in post-keratoplasty eyes. Br J Ophthalmol. 1992;76:538–40.
Kao SF, Lichter PR, Bergstrom TJ, Rowe S, Musch DC. Clinical comparison of the Oculab Tono-Pen to the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Ophthalmology. 1987;94:1541–4.
Frenkel RE, Hong YJ, Shin DH. Comparison of the Tono-Pen to the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Arch Ophthalmol Chic Ill 1960. 1988;106:750–3.
Dohadwala AA, Munger R, Damji KF. Positive correlation between Tono-Pen intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1849–54.
Cordero I. Understanding and caring for a Schiotz tonometer. Community Eye Health. 2014;27:57.
The incidence of Schiøtz-applanation disparity. Arch Ophthalmol Chic Ill 1960. 1967;77:305–8.
Patel H, Gilmartin B, Cubbidge RP, Logan NS. In vivo measurement of regional variation in anterior scleral resistance to Schiotz indentation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt J Br Coll Ophthalmic Opt Optom. 2011;31:437–43.
Ademola-Popoola D, ODI A, Akande T. Comparison of IOP readings using rebound I CARE tonometer and Perkins applanation tonometer in an African population. J West Afr Coll Surg. 2014;4:17–30.
van der Jagt LH, Jansonius NM. Three portable tonometers, the TGDc-01, the ICARE and the Tonopen XL, compared with each other and with Goldmann applanation tonometry. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt J Br Coll Ophthalmic Opt Optom. 2005;25:429–35.
Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, Parisi L. Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:213–7.
Gao F, Liu X, Zhao Q, Pan Y. Comparison of the iCare rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer. Exp Ther Med. 2017;13:1912–6.
Sinha G, Gupta S, Temkar S, Pandey V, Sihota R, Dada T. IOP agreement between I-Care TA01 rebound tonometer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer in eyes with and without glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol. 2015;35:89–93.
Fernandes P, Diaz-Rey JA, Queiros A, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Jorge J. Comparison of the ICareR rebound tonometer with the Goldmann tonometer in a normal population. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005;25:436–40.
Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Castillo A, Garcia-Sanchez J. Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:4578–80.
Nakamura M, Darhad U, Tatsumi Y, Fujioka M, Kusuhara A, Maeda H, et al. Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of applanation tonometers. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142:332–4.
Güler M, Bilak Ş, Bilgin B, Şimşek A, Çapkin M, Hakim Reyhan A. Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by Icare PRO Rebound Tonometer, Tomey FT-1000 Noncontact Tonometer, and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer in healthy subjects. J Glaucoma. 2015;24:613–8.
Tamçelik N, Atalay E, Cicik E, Özkök A. Comparability of Icare Pro Rebound Tonometer with Goldmann Applanation and Noncontact Tonometer in a wide range of intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness. Ophthalmic Res. 2015;54:18–25.
Beasley IG, Laughton DS, Coldrick BJ, Drew TE, Sallah M, Davies LN. Does rebound tonometry probe misalignment modify intraocular pressure measurements in human eyes? J Ophthalmol. 2013;2013:791084.
Mudie LI, LaBarre S, Varadaraj V, Karakus S, Onnela J, Munoz B, et al. The Icare HOME (TA022) Study: performance of an intraocular pressure measuring device for self-tonometry by glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:1675–84.
Takagi D, Sawada A, Yamamoto T. Evaluation of a new rebound self-tonometer, Icare HOME: comparison with Goldmann Applanation Tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2017;26:613–8.
Pascal’s law - Oxford reference [Internet]. [Cited 2017 Sep 26]. Available from: http://www.oxfordreference.com/oso/viewauthority/10.1093$002foi$002fauthority.20110803100308954
Punjabi OS, Kniestedt C, Stamper RL, Lin SC. Dynamic contour tonometry: principle and use. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006;34:837–40.
Wang AS, Alencar LM, Weinreb RN, Tafreshi A, Deokule S, Vizzeri G, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of Goldmann applanation, dynamic contour, and ocular response analyzer tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2013;22:127–32.
Francis BA, Hsieh A, Lai M-Y, Chopra V, Pena F, Azen S, et al. Effects of corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and intraocular pressure level on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:20–6.
Milla E, Duch S, Buchacra O, Masuet C. Poor agreement between Goldmann and Pascal tonometry in eyes with extreme pachymetry. Eye Lond Engl. 2009;23:536–42.
Erickson DH, Goodwin D, Rollins M, Belaustegui A, Anderson C. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry and their relationship to corneal properties, refractive error, and ocular pulse amplitude. Optom St Louis MO. 2009;80:169–74.
Siganos DS, Papastergiou GI, Moedas C. Assessment of the Pascal dynamic contour tonometer in monitoring intraocular pressure in unoperated eyes and eyes after LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:746–51.
Papastergiou GI, Kozobolis V, Siganos DS. Effect of recipient corneal pathology on Pascal tonometer and Goldmann tonometer readings in eyes after penetrating keratoplasty. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2010;20:29–34.
Boehm AG, Weber A, Pillunat LE, Koch R, Spoerl E. Dynamic contour tonometry in comparison to intracameral IOP measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:2472–7.
Bochmann F, Kaufmann C, Thiel MA. Dynamic contour tonometry versus Goldmann applanation tonometry: challenging the gold standard. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2010;5:743–9.
Ambrósio R Jr, Ramos I, Luz A, Faria FC, Steinmueller A, Krug M, et al. Dynamic ultra high speed Scheimpflug imaging for assessing corneal biomechanical properties. Rev Bras Oftalmol. 2013;72:99–102.
Lopes BT, Roberts CJ, Elsheikh A, Vinciguerra R, Vinciguerra P, Reisdorf S, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of intraocular pressure and dynamic corneal response parameters assessed by the Corvis ST. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:8515742.
Hong J, Xu J, Wei A, Deng SX, Cui X, Yu X, et al. A new tonometer—the Corvis ST tonometer: clinical comparison with noncontact and Goldmann applanation tonometers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:659–65.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aziz, K., Friedman, D.S. Tonometers—which one should I use?. Eye 32, 931–937 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-018-0040-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-018-0040-4
This article is cited by
-
Trends in glaucoma practices among a cohort of ophthalmologists in Latin America: A survey-based study
Eye (2025)
-
Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometer, corvis ST and a conventional non-contact airpuff tonometer in eyes with previous myopic refractive surgery and correlation with corneal biomechanical parameters
International Ophthalmology (2025)
-
Corneal biomechanics and diagnostics: a review
International Ophthalmology (2024)
-
The short-term effects of intranasal steroids on intraocular pressure in pediatric population
International Ophthalmology (2022)
-
Correlation between corneal thickness, keratometry, age, and differential pressure difference in healthy eyes
Scientific Reports (2021)
