ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Comparison of intraocular pressure measurements with and without fluorescein using Goldmann applanation tonometry.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of fluorescein on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements using Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). The study compared IOP readings with and without fluorescein to determine its influence on measurement accuracy in clinical practice.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 39 patients (78 eyes). IOP was measured three times under each condition: fluorescein-free with green light and fluorescein-aided with cobalt blue light. The prespecified primary comparison was between the first fluorescein-free reading and the first fluorescein-aided reading, separated by approximately 1 minute (the time needed to apply fluorescein). Statistical analysis (repeated-measures ANOVA for within-series change; Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for paired comparisons) was used to compare measurements, while corneal astigmatism, keratometry, and central corneal thickness were assessed for their potential influence on discrepancies. A sensitivity analysis excluding patients with >3.0 D corneal astigmatism was conducted.
resultsNo significant difference was found between the first fluorescein-free and first fluorescein-aided IOP measurements (Wilcoxon P = 0.75; mean difference +0.04 mmHg). Consecutive measurements showed significant IOP reductions within each group, attributed to mechanical effects of the tonometer (repeated-measures ANOVA P < 0.01). Corneal parameters, including central corneal thickness and keratometry, did not significantly affect the differences. Results were unchanged after excluding patients with >3.0 D astigmatism.
conclusionsFluorescein does not significantly affect IOP measurements using GAT, supporting fluorescein-free measurement as a viable alternative in routine practice. Further research is needed to evaluate its application in cases of high astigmatism or altered corneal geometry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.