ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2023
Understanding the barriers to blood pressure assessment in cats.
Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of Thames Medical CAT+ Doppler and AutoCAT+ Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor devices for non-invasive blood pressure measurement in cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA questionnaire was designed to survey veterinarians and veterinary nurses/technicians on blood pressure (BP) assessment in cats, including ocular examination, encompassing current methodology, indications, uptake and barriers.
methodsAn online questionnaire was produced and promoted to more than 2000 veterinary professionals, of whom 545 answered all questions and 85 answered most questions.
resultsOf the participants, 572 (90.8%) were based in the UK and almost all (n = 613, 97.3%) had access to a BP monitor. Of those that had a monitor, most (n = 550, 88.4%) participants had access to a Doppler monitor; 367 (59.0%) participants had access to multiparameter monitors; fewer (n = 202, 32.5%) had access to oscillometric BP monitors. Where applicable, Doppler monitors were most commonly chosen for conscious cat measurements (n = 337, 72.2%) due to the greater 'trust' and 'reliability' of these compared with oscillometric machines. Conscious BP measurement typically involved two members of staff (n = 391, 62.9%). Only 156 (29.1%) participants recommended BP assessment at least several times a week in their interactions with cat owners. BP assessment was routinely recommended in cats with ocular target organ damage (n = 365, 87.7%), chronic kidney disease (n = 346, 78.6%), proteinuria (n = 255, 63.0%) and hyperthyroidism (n = 266, 60.9%). Common equipment-related barriers included 'cuff frustration' and difficulties hearing the pulse signal for Doppler users (72.2% and 71.6%, respectively), and oscillometric machines failing to give a reading at least some of the time (52.8%). Situational hypertension concerns affected many (n = 507, 92.0%), as did lack of time to do the procedure (n = 402, 73.0%). Significant owner barriers included difficulties persuading the owner to bring their cat in for BP checks (n = 475, 86.2%) and concerns over costs (n = 445, 80.8%). Most participants had access to a direct ophthalmoscope (n = 527, 96.5%); however, 399 (73.1%) reported that they struggled to interpret ocular findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Significant barriers exist to successful BP assessment in cats. Education and support of clinics should focus on improving confidence with equipment and eye examination.
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.