Comparison of three rebound tonometers in rabbits.

Chenghai Wang, Yunhao Su, Fushan Shi, Ji Fu

Abstract readComparative Study

In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Chenghai WangSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, 310018, China.

Yunhao SuSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, 310018, China.

Fushan ShiZhejiang University Center for Veterinary Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China.

Ji FuSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, 310018, China. fuji@zstu.edu.cn.

Funding

Zhejiang Sei-Tech University No. 24242151-Y

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study compared the performance of three rebound tonometers (iFalcon Tonovet, iCare Tonovet Plus, Reichert Tono-Vera Vet) for measuring intraocular pressure (IOP) in normal rabbit eyes, where a wide range of intraocular pressure (approx. 11-86 mmHg) was established and regulated via an intracameral needle connected to a saline manometer. Intraocular pressure measurements were performed on 10 eyes of New Zealand White rabbits using each of the three tonometers mentioned above. Measurements were taken at pressures ranging from 11 to 86 mmHg, yielding a total of 298 datasets. Statistical analysis of the intraocular pressure values obtained: iFalcon (32.5 ± 13.9 mmHg), iCare (33.6 ± 14.3 mmHg), Reichert (31.4 ± 12.0 mmHg) (p = 0.138). High overall agreement was observed (R

Indexed as

Intraocular PressureTonometry, OcularAnimalsRabbits

Identifiers

PMID41462550

DOI10.1038/s41598-025-28990-8

PMCPMC12749333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

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.