Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39328448›Full record

ArticleVeterinary world2024

Comparison of three methodologies for measuring intraocular pressure in healthy cats.

Claudia Lizandra Ricci, João Victor Goulart Consoni Passareli, Felipe Franco Nascimento, Glaucia Prada Kanashiro, Luís Felipe da Costa Zulim, Rogério Giuffrida, Silvia Franco Andrade

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary world, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Claudia Lizandra RicciPostgraduate Program in Animal Science, UNOESTE, Presidente Prudente, São Paulo, Brazil.
João Victor Goulart Consoni PassareliPostgraduate Program in Animal Science, UNOESTE, Presidente Prudente, São Paulo, Brazil.
Felipe Franco NascimentoPostgraduate Program in Animal Science, UNOESTE, Presidente Prudente, São Paulo, Brazil.
Glaucia Prada KanashiroPostgraduate Program in Animal Science, UNOESTE, Presidente Prudente, São Paulo, Brazil.
Luís Felipe da Costa ZulimPostgraduate Program in Animal Science, UNOESTE, Presidente Prudente, São Paulo, Brazil.
Rogério GiuffridaPostgraduate Program in Animal Science, UNOESTE, Presidente Prudente, São Paulo, Brazil.
Silvia Franco AndradePostgraduate Program in Animal Science, UNOESTE, Presidente Prudente, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aim: Measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) is crucial for identifying potentially damaging changes in the eyes, including diseases as glaucoma and uveitis. This study compared intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements in cats using the Tonovet and Tonovet Plus (rebound), Tono-Pen Avia Vet (applanation), and Kowa HA-2 (Goldman's methodology applanation) tonometers. Materials and Methods: 55 healthy cats (108 eyes) were assessed through three distinct studies: An Results: The Conclusion: IOP and manometry readings were strongly correlated by all tonometers. In the clinical setting, the most and least IOP measurements were recorded using Tonovet and Kowa HA-2, respectively, stressing the importance of an IOP reference table for each tonometer in feline practice.

Indexed as

applanation tonometrygoldmann tonometryintraocular pressureocular manometryrebound tonometry

Identifiers

PMID39328448
PMCPMC11422646

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.