ArticleOpen veterinary journal2026
Repeatability and reproducibility of intraocular pressure measurements in horses using rebound and applanation tonometry.
Article in Open veterinary journal, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intraocular pressure (IOP) assessment is a fundamental component of ophthalmic examinations in both veterinary and human medicine. Due to variations in IOP across species and potential differences among examiners, knowledge of normal IOP values obtained using different tonometers is essential. Aim: This study aimed to compare the repeatability and reproducibility of IOP values in horses obtained by three different examiners using rebound (Tonovet Methods: Thirty healthy criollo horses were examined. IOP was measured by three veterinarians with different levels of experience following routine ophthalmic evaluation. Statistical analyses included analysis of variance, Student's t-test, and calculation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The mean IOP values were 26.16 ± 5.13 mm Hg with rebound tonometry and 22.55 ± 7.32 mm Hg with applanation tonometry, indicating a significant difference between the two devices. For the rebound measurements, the examiner-specific means were as follows: Conclusion: Rebound tonometry (Tonovet
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.