ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2026
Comparison of Thames Medical CAT+ Doppler and AutoCAT+ Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor devices for non-invasive blood pressure measurement in cats.
Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectivesA comparative assessment of systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurement was carried out for anaesthetised and conscious cats by using two non-invasive approaches based on the Doppler method and a newly developed oscillometric instrument.MethodsSBP was recorded on 131 occasions in 26 cats entering a shelter environment. Six of these cats were monitored while under a general anaesthetic for elective procedures and the rest were conscious during routine health assessment. A paired approach was followed using the Doppler method followed immediately by the oscillometric approach. Mean values and coefficient of variations were calculated. A normal distribution was confirmed before a standard Bland-Altman analysis was completed.ResultsThe mean SBP (±SD) for the 131 paired readings was 113.3 ± 23.9 mmHg and 116.3 ± 26.7 mmHg for the Doppler and oscillometric methods, respectively. The small difference in means was not significant. Anaesthetised cats had significantly lower SBP values than those that were conscious. The data set for 16 cats with three replicated paired measurements and a subset of 12 with five such replicated measurements also provided similar normally distributed mean values and a high correlation coefficient. The Bland-Altman plot suggested a positive bias of the oscillometric approach of +3.07 ± 12.3 mmHg (limits of agreement of -21.0 to 27.1 mmHg) and +4.93 ± 9.38 mmHg (limits of agreement of -13.5 to 23.3 mmHg) for the 16- and 12-cat subgroups, respectively. There was 100% agreement between the two methods in allocation to a hypertension class.Conclusions and relevanceThe results establish that the new AutoCAT+ instrument met some of the guidelines for assessing such instruments for veterinary use with cats with a normal range of blood pressure. Further work is needed with a larger data set spanning hypotension to hypertension for complete validation.
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.