Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34584185›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of three tonometers for measuring intraocular pressure in rabbits.

Christian J F Bertens, Ralph J S van Mechelen, Tos T J M Berendschot, Marlies Gijs, Jarno E J Wolters, Theo G M F Gorgels, Rudy M M A Nuijts, Henny J M Beckers

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christian J F Bertens *Department of Ophthalmology, University Eye Clinic Maastricht, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNs), Maastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), P. Debyelaan 25, PO Box 5800, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands. christian.bertens@mumc.nl.
Ralph J S van Mechelen *Department of Ophthalmology, University Eye Clinic Maastricht, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNs), Maastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), P. Debyelaan 25, PO Box 5800, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Tos T J M BerendschotDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Eye Clinic Maastricht, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNs), Maastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), P. Debyelaan 25, PO Box 5800, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marlies GijsDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Eye Clinic Maastricht, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNs), Maastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), P. Debyelaan 25, PO Box 5800, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jarno E J WoltersDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Eye Clinic Maastricht, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNs), Maastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), P. Debyelaan 25, PO Box 5800, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Theo G M F GorgelsDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Eye Clinic Maastricht, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNs), Maastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), P. Debyelaan 25, PO Box 5800, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Rudy M M A NuijtsDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Eye Clinic Maastricht, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNs), Maastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), P. Debyelaan 25, PO Box 5800, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Henny J M BeckersDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Eye Clinic Maastricht, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNs), Maastricht University Medical Center+ (MUMC+), P. Debyelaan 25, PO Box 5800, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of three commonly used tonometers in animal research (TonoLab, TonoVet, and TonoPEN AVIA) in a cohort of 24 rabbits. Additionally, the impact of sedation on IOP was investigated in 21 New Zealand White rabbits with the TonoVet tonometer. Repeatability was determined using the coefficient of variation (CoV) for two observers. For the TonoLab (6.55%) and TonoVet (6.38%) the CoV was lower than for the TonoPEN AVIA (10.88%). The reproducibility was highest for the TonoVet (0.2 ± 3.3 mmHg), followed by the TonoLab (0 ± 12.89 mmHg) and lowest for the TonoPEN AVIA (- 1.48 ± 10.3 mmHg). The TonoLab and TonoVet showed the highest agreement (r = 0.85, R

Indexed as

AnesthesiaIntraocular PressureTonometry, OcularAnimal ExperimentationAnimalsManometryRabbitsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID34584185
PMCPMC8478901
OpenAlexW3202260095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.