Article in Veterinary ophthalmology, 2026. 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.
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
11 authors.
Tarcísio Guerra GuimarãesFaculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research (iCBR), area of Environment Genetics and Oncobiology (CIMAGO) and Institute of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4547-3891
Antônio Felipe P F WoukDivision of Veterinary Ophthalmology, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Paraná (UFPR) and MeBi Veterinary Hospital, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9233-0909
Karla Menezes CardosoFaculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research (iCBR), area of Environment Genetics and Oncobiology (CIMAGO) and Institute of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7145-4323
Francisco CarameloFaculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research (iCBR), area of Environment Genetics and Oncobiology (CIMAGO) and Institute of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0015-8604
Luís CarvalhoFaculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research (iCBR), area of Environment Genetics and Oncobiology (CIMAGO) and Institute of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1003-2343
Carlos Miguel MartoFaculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research (iCBR), area of Environment Genetics and Oncobiology (CIMAGO) and Institute of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9269-5417
António Francisco AmbrósioFaculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research (iCBR), area of Environment Genetics and Oncobiology (CIMAGO) and Institute of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0477-1641
Nuno AlexandreUniversity of Évora, Institute for Advanced Studies and Research (IIFA) and Mediterranean Institute for Agriculture, Environment and Development (MED), Évora, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3291-9332
Maria Filomena BotelhoFaculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research (iCBR), area of Environment Genetics and Oncobiology (CIMAGO) and Institute of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7202-1650
Mafalda LaranjoFaculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research (iCBR), area of Environment Genetics and Oncobiology (CIMAGO) and Institute of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0689-6007
Funding
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia COVID/BD/152962/2023Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007440Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia SFRH/BD/139319/2018Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UIDB/04539/2020Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UIDB/04539/2025Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UIDP/04539/2020
6 · The paper itself
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the agreement between intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements in rats using different animal-adapted tonometers and to evaluate the relation among the devices.
methodsIOP was measured using the TonoLab tonometer, followed by the TonoVet Plus and finally, the Tono-Pen AVIA Vet. A total of 24 eyes were studied from 12 healthy Wistar rats anesthetized with sevoflurane. Agreement analysis was performed between the TonoLab tonometer and the TonoVet Plus, and the TonoLab and Tono-Pen AVIA Vet using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). For the tested pairs, Bland-Altman graphs were also performed. The relation of TonoVet Plus and Tono-Pen AVIA Vet tonometers to TonoLab was also evaluated using a simple linear regression.
resultsThe agreement between the TonoLab tonometers and the TonoVet Plus was weak (ICC = 0.173, 95% CI [-0.129; 0.489], p = 0.130) and not statistically significant. The agreement between the TonoLab and the Tono-Pen AVIA Vet tonometers was negligible (ICC = 0.011, 95% CI [-0.117; 0.218], p = 0.448). Linear regression analysis between the TonoLab and the TonoVet Plus (p = 0.256), as well as between the TonoLab and the Tono-Pen AVIA Vet (p = 0.897), was not statistically significant.
conclusionsThe measurements revealed a consistent pattern in which the Tono-Pen AVIA Vet showed the highest mean IOP values, followed by the TonoVet Plus and the TonoLab. Knowing the normal values of indirect IOP in rats for each of these tonometers, as well as the differences between them, is fundamental for the proper interpretation of the measurements obtained and for allowing reliable comparisons between the devices.
Indexed as
Intraocular PressureTonometry, OcularAnimalsMaleRatsRats, WistarReproducibility of Resultsapplanation tonometryrebound tonometrytonometerWistar rat
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.
Comparison of TonoLab, TonoVet Plus, and Tono-Pen AVIA Vet Tonometers for Measuring Intraocular Pressure in Rats. · full record | OpenQuestion