Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30034218›Full record

ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

Icare

Shunsuke Nakakura

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04211792 (Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements Between Icare PRO, Icare ic200, and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer), which is not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04211792 completednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Intraocular Pressure Measurements Between Icare PRO, Icare ic200, and Goldmann Applanation Tonometer

TypeobservationalSponsorLondon Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph'sRan2020 to 2021Enrolled101ConditionsIntraocular PressureArmsIcare Tonometer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluation of the iFalconBMC veterinary research · 2026
    Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. To reuse or not reuse? That is a rebound question!Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Shunsuke NakakuraDepartment of Ophthalmology, Saneikai Tsukazaki Hospital, Himeji City, Japan, shunsukenakakura@yahoo.co.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rebound tonometer has a unique mechanism for measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) and has become popular worldwide due to its ease of use. The most notable advantages are the lack of an air-puff and need for topical anesthesia, ease of operation and transport, and the ability to use it with children. Four rebound tonometers (Icare

Indexed as

glaucomaIcareintraocular pressurerebound tonometer

Identifiers

PMID30034218
PMCPMC6047858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.