Purpose To assess the agreement among four types of intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements: IOP obtained by Goldmann applanation tonometer (IOP-GAT),IOP obtained by an air-puff tonometer (Nidek NT-510)(IOP-NCT), the non-corrected IOP obtained by the Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (IOP-Corvis) and the biomechanically corrected IOP obtained by the Corvis ST (bIOP-Corvis) in healthy patients with a broad spectrum of IOP values. Methods: This prospective, observational study recruited 113 healthy individuals. Each patient underwent IOP evaluation via GAT, Nidek NT-510 and Corvis ST. Difference in mean in IOP readings was assessed by one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).Tonometer intermethod agreement was assessed by the Bland-Altman method. The difference between the four IOP measurements was correlated against corneal (CCT) and age with Pearson’s correlation test. Results: IOP-Corvis showed the highest values (16.59  ±  3.08 mmHg),followed by IOP-NCT (16.05  ±  3.43 mmHg), IOP-GAT (15.62 ± 3.08 mmHg) and bIOP-Corvis (15.10 ± 2.67 mmHg).There were statistically significant differences in IOP measurements among all the ANOVA pairwise comparisons except between IOP-GAT and bIOP-Corvis ( p = 0.07),as well as between IOP-GAT and IOP-NCT ( p = 0.25). Bland Altman analysis revealed a notable bias (all p < 0.05) among IOP-GAT and bIOP-Corvis, IOP-GAT and IOP-Corvis, IOP-GAT and IOP-NCT, bIOP-Corvis and IOP-Corvis, bIOP-Corvis and IOP-NCT,IOP-Corvis and IOP-NCT of 0.51, −0.97, −0.43, −1.49, −0.95, 0.53 mmHg respectively. We observed a strong correlation of the difference between bIOP-Corvis and IOP-Corvis with CCT and patient age. Conclusion: Compared with GAT and Nidek NT-510, the Corvis-derived IOPs were recorded either the highest as IOP-Corvis or the lowest as bIOP-Corvis. Even if the differences among the tonometers were relatively small, the IOP values obtained with the Corvis ST, NCT and GAT were not interchangeable.

No abstract