ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Comparison of measurement performance among Tono-Vera vet, Tono-Pen vet, and Tono-Vet plus using an ex vivo porcine eye model.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the iFalconBMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Preliminary estimate of reference intraocular pressure values in eastern barred bandicoots (Open veterinary journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) is critical in veterinary ophthalmology, yet performance differences between handheld tonometers remain a clinical challenge. This original article aims to directly evaluate the newly launched Reichert
methodsTen eyes were used to compare the accuracy and consistency of TVV, TVP, and TPV across physiological (5-25 mmHg) and high (30-70 mmHg) intraocular pressure (IOP) ranges. Bias assessment, Bland-Altman plots, regression analysis, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were conducted.
resultsTVV demonstrated superior accuracy in the physiological range, with a mean deviation of 1.16 ± 2.31 mmHg and narrow limits of agreement (min =-3.38 mmHg, max = 5.69 mmHg). At higher pressures, TVV's variability increased (mean deviation = 0.566 ± 5.95 mmHg). TVP consistently overestimated IOP, particularly at high pressures (mean deviation = 5.68 ± 6.46 mmHg), while TPV significantly underestimated IOP (mean deviation =-11.0 ± 8.55 mmHg; p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis confirmed TVV's better agreement with true IOP in the physiological range. Regression analysis showed a strong correlation for TVV (R² > 0.90), and ROC analysis highlighted its strong discriminative ability (AUC = 0.913). None of the devices effectively differentiated accurate measurements at high IOPs.
conclusionsTVV outperformed TVP and TPV in accuracy and consistency, particularly for physiological IOPs. Its reliability supports its use in routine IOP assessments, though all devices showed limitations at elevated pressures.
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.