ArticleScientific reports2020
Comparison of extraocular and intraocular pressure transducers for measurement of transient intraocular pressure fluctuations using continuous wireless telemetry.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Continuous Wireless Telemetric Measurement of Intraocular Pressure (IOP), Ocular Perfusion Pressure (OPP), and Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure (CSFP) in Nonhuman Primates (NHPs).Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Characterization of intraocular pressure variability in conscious rats.Experimental eye research · 2024Article
- Advancements in Wearable and Implantable Intraocular Pressure Biosensors for Ophthalmology: A Comprehensive Review.Micromachines · 2023Review
- Correlation between corneal and contact lens deformation with changes in intraocular pressure for wearable monitoring systems.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Magnetic Nano-Platform Enhanced iPSC-Derived Trabecular Meshwork Delivery and Tracking Efficiency.International journal of nanomedicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The optimal approach for continuous measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP), including pressure transducer location and measurement frequency, is currently unknown. This study assessed the capability of extraocular (EO) and intraocular (IO) pressure transducers, using different IOP sampling rates and duty cycles, to characterize IOP dynamics. Transient IOP fluctuations were measured and quantified in 7 eyes of 4 male rhesus macaques (NHPs) using the Konigsberg EO system (continuous at 500 Hz), 12 eyes of 8 NHPs with the Stellar EO system and 16 eyes of 12 NHPs with the Stellar IO system (both measure at 200 Hz for 15 s of every 150 s period). IOP transducers were calibrated bi-weekly via anterior chamber manometry. Linear mixed effects models assessed the differences in the hourly transient IOP impulse, and transient IOP fluctuation frequency and magnitude between systems and transducer placements (EO versus IO). All systems measured 8000-12,000 and 5000-6500 transient IOP fluctuations per hour > 0.6 mmHg, representing 8-16% and 4-8% of the total IOP energy the eye must withstand during waking and sleeping hours, respectively. Differences between sampling frequency/duty cycle and transducer placement were statistically significant (p < 0.05) but the effect sizes were small and clinically insignificant. IOP dynamics can be accurately captured by sampling IOP at 200 Hz on a 10% duty cycle using either IO or EO transducers.
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.