ArticleVeterinary and animal science2020
Comparison of two non-invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring techniques in brown bears (
Article in Veterinary and animal science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physiological Responses and Safety Evaluation of Combined Fremont™ Snare and Medetomidine-Ketamine-Acepromazine Immobilization in Free-Ranging Apennine Wolves (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Comparison of the cardiovascular effects of immobilization with three different drug combinations in free-ranging African lions.Conservation physiology · 2023Article
- NON-INVASIVE BLOOD PRESSURE AND OTHER PHYSIOLOGICAL DATA IN CHEMICALLY IMMOBILIZED BROWN BEARS (Data in brief · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Monitoring arterial blood pressure (BP), represents a more accurate evaluation of hemodynamics than heart rate alone and is essential for preventing and treating intra- and post-operative complications in wildlife chemical immobilization. The objectives of the study were to test the correlation between standard oscillometry and Korotkoff's technique in anesthetized free-ranging brown bears in Croatia and Scandinavia and to assess the blood pressure in both locations. Five bears were snared and darted with xylazine and ketamine in Croatia, and 20 bears were darted from a helicopter with medetomidine and tiletamine-zolazepam in Scandinavia. Blood pressure was simultaneously measured with both techniques every 5 minutes. Correlation between techniques, trends of BP variation, and the factors of the capture which likely influenced BP were assessed. Successful measurements of BP were achieved in 93% of all attempts with the Korotkoff's technique but in only 29% of all attempts with oscillometry. The latter method mostly provided lower values of BP compared to Korotkoff's technique in yearlings. Most bears showed a decreasing trend in systolic and mean BP over time, consistent between the two techniques. All bears were hypertensive: the auscultatory technique detected moderate to severe systolic hypertension in 25% and 84% of bears in Croatia and in Scandinavia, respectively, with significantly higher BP in subadults and adults compared to yearlings. Only Korotkoff's method resulted in a reliable and effective tool for BP assessment in brown bears. The anesthetic protocols used in the present study in association with the capture methods produced hypertension in all animals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.