ReviewVeterinary evidence
Is non-invasive blood pressure comparably accurate to the invasive method in cats?
Review in Veterinary evidence. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hemodynamic Effects of Intravenous Ephedrine Administration During General Anesthesia for Radiation Therapy in Cats.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
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
PICO question: In cats, is blood pressure measurement using non-invasive methods (Doppler or oscillometric) comparable to invasive arterial blood pressure measurement (direct arterial telemetry)? Clinical bottom line: Category of research: Diagnosis. Number and type of study designs reviewed: Thirteen method comparison studies and one prospective experimental study (fourteen total). Strength of evidence: Moderate. Outcomes reported: For oscillometry: two studies found it to be comparable; five studies found it to only be comparable in certain circumstances; and four studies found it not to be comparable (11 studies total measuring oscillometric). For Doppler: no studies found it to be completely comparable; two studies found it to be comparable under certain circumstances; and five found it not to be comparable (seven studies total measuring Doppler). Conclusion: The evidence is mixed and suggests that Doppler in cats is not comparable to the reference standard (invasive measurement) or may only be comparable under certain conditions. Oscillometry may be comparable to the reference standard but is also often found to only be comparable under specific conditions. There is more evidence for the comparability of oscillometry than for Doppler, particularly for measurement of mean arterial pressure. How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient's circumstances and owners' values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.
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.