Objective:To compare intraocular p ressure(IOP)values obtained by patients using the new Pr oview eye pressure monitor(Bausch &Lomb,Rochester,NY)with those measured with the Goldmann tonomete r and the TonoPen(Mentor,Norwell,Mass).Methods:Eighty-six patients(a total of 171eyes)-with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect successfully comp leted the study.The IOP was measured by 3methods in the fo llowing order:Goldmann tonometer,TonoPen,and Pr oview eye pressure monitor.The central corneal thickn ess was measured by an ultrasonic pachymeter.Separate ly for each eye,the differences in mean IOP values betwe en measurement methods were assessed with paired te sts and also in mul-tivariate models that tested the dep endence of IOP differ-ence on central corneal thickness.R esults:There was a significant difference(P<.001)in the mean IOPs measured by the 3different methods(Goldmann vs Proview,Goldmann vs TonoPen,and TonoPen vs Proview)for both eyes,and the difference was indepen-dent of the central corneal thickness.The differences be-tween IOP measured by Goldmann and Pr oview were sim-ilar in all categories of patient-re ported ease of using the Proview.Conclusions:The IOPs obta ined with the Proview eye pressure monitor are sig nificantly lower than those measured with Goldmann tonome ter and the TonoPen,and variations of the centr al corneal thickness do not contribute to the difference.Intraclass correlations of IOP values obtained with the Goldm ann and the Proview or TonoPen and Proview are not strong.On the other hand,as expected,measurements with Goldmann and TonoPen agreed fairly well. Objective: To compare intraocular p ressure (IOP) values ​​obtained by patients using the new Pr oview eye pressure monitor (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) with those measured with the Goldmann tonomete r and the TonoPen (Mentor, Norwell, Mass) : Eighty-six patients (a total of 171eyes) -with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect successfully compiled the study. IOP was measured by 3methods in the fo llowing order: Goldmann tonometer, TonoPen, and Prviewview eye pressure monitor. The central corneal thickn ess was measured by an ultrasonic pachymeter .Separate ly for each eye, the differences in mean IOP values ​​betwe en measurement methods were assessed with paired te sts and also in mul-tivariate models that tested the dep endence of IOP differ- ence on central corneal thickness. Results: There was a significant difference (P <.001) in the mean IOPs measured by the 3different methods (Goldmann vs Proview, Goldmann vs TonoPen, and TonoPen vs Proview) for both eyes, and the difference was indepen-dent o f the central corneal thickness. These differences be-tween IOP measured by Goldmann and Pr oview were sim-ilar in all categories of patient-re ported ease of using the Proview. Conclusions: The IOPs obtained with the Proview eye pressure monitor are sig nificantly lower than those measured with Goldmann tonome ter and the TonoPen, and variations of the centr al corneal thickness do not contribute to the difference. Intraclass correlations of IOP values ​​obtained with the Goldm ann and the Proview or TonoPen and Proview are not strong. On the other hand, as expected, measurements with Goldmann and TonoPen well-balanced well.