Cargando…

Comparison of two rebound tonometers in healthy horses

OBJECTIVE: To obtain a reference range for evaluation of intraocular pressure (IOP) in horses using Tonovet Plus(®), to compare the IOP readings obtained with Tonovet(®) and Tonovet Plus(®), and to evaluate the repeatability of readings. ANIMALS STUDIED AND PROCEDURES: Intraocular pressure of 30 cli...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mustikka, Minna P., Pietilä, Elina M., Mykkänen, Anna K., Grönthal, Thomas S. C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7540552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32888242
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/vop.12819
_version_ 1783591235171123200
author Mustikka, Minna P.
Pietilä, Elina M.
Mykkänen, Anna K.
Grönthal, Thomas S. C.
author_facet Mustikka, Minna P.
Pietilä, Elina M.
Mykkänen, Anna K.
Grönthal, Thomas S. C.
author_sort Mustikka, Minna P.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To obtain a reference range for evaluation of intraocular pressure (IOP) in horses using Tonovet Plus(®), to compare the IOP readings obtained with Tonovet(®) and Tonovet Plus(®), and to evaluate the repeatability of readings. ANIMALS STUDIED AND PROCEDURES: Intraocular pressure of 30 client‐owned horses (60 eyes) with no signs of illness or ocular disease was evaluated using Tonovet(®) and Tonovet Plus(®) rebound tonometers. Horses’ mean age was 10.7 (range 6‐17) years. Triplicate measurements were performed without using sedatives or local anesthetics, with minimal restraint. RESULTS: Calculated reference intervals (the CLSI robust method) were 14.4‐27.2 mmHg for Tonovet(®) and 16.0‐26.1 mmHg for Tonovet Plus(®). Mean values (± standard deviation, SD [± coefficient of variation, CV]) obtained with Tonovet Plus(®) (21.6 ± 2.45 mmHg [11.3%]) were on average 0.6 mmHg higher than with Tonovet(®) (21.0 ± 3.14 mmHg [15.0%]), and a negligible statistical difference between the devices was found using the paired sample t test (P = .049). The correlation coefficient for the averaged triplicate measurements was 0.73. The average CV was 4.6% and 4.4% for Tonovet(®) and Tonovet Plus(®), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The repeatability of measurements was very good with both devices. The readings between the two devices differed statistically significantly, but the correlation was considered good and the variation was numerically small, and thus, the difference was considered clinically irrelevant. When monitoring disease process or treatment response in an individual patient, repeated readings are best performed using a similar device to avoid false interpretation of results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7540552
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75405522020-10-09 Comparison of two rebound tonometers in healthy horses Mustikka, Minna P. Pietilä, Elina M. Mykkänen, Anna K. Grönthal, Thomas S. C. Vet Ophthalmol Original Articles OBJECTIVE: To obtain a reference range for evaluation of intraocular pressure (IOP) in horses using Tonovet Plus(®), to compare the IOP readings obtained with Tonovet(®) and Tonovet Plus(®), and to evaluate the repeatability of readings. ANIMALS STUDIED AND PROCEDURES: Intraocular pressure of 30 client‐owned horses (60 eyes) with no signs of illness or ocular disease was evaluated using Tonovet(®) and Tonovet Plus(®) rebound tonometers. Horses’ mean age was 10.7 (range 6‐17) years. Triplicate measurements were performed without using sedatives or local anesthetics, with minimal restraint. RESULTS: Calculated reference intervals (the CLSI robust method) were 14.4‐27.2 mmHg for Tonovet(®) and 16.0‐26.1 mmHg for Tonovet Plus(®). Mean values (± standard deviation, SD [± coefficient of variation, CV]) obtained with Tonovet Plus(®) (21.6 ± 2.45 mmHg [11.3%]) were on average 0.6 mmHg higher than with Tonovet(®) (21.0 ± 3.14 mmHg [15.0%]), and a negligible statistical difference between the devices was found using the paired sample t test (P = .049). The correlation coefficient for the averaged triplicate measurements was 0.73. The average CV was 4.6% and 4.4% for Tonovet(®) and Tonovet Plus(®), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The repeatability of measurements was very good with both devices. The readings between the two devices differed statistically significantly, but the correlation was considered good and the variation was numerically small, and thus, the difference was considered clinically irrelevant. When monitoring disease process or treatment response in an individual patient, repeated readings are best performed using a similar device to avoid false interpretation of results. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-09-04 2020-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7540552/ /pubmed/32888242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/vop.12819 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Veterinary Ophthalmology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Mustikka, Minna P.
Pietilä, Elina M.
Mykkänen, Anna K.
Grönthal, Thomas S. C.
Comparison of two rebound tonometers in healthy horses
title Comparison of two rebound tonometers in healthy horses
title_full Comparison of two rebound tonometers in healthy horses
title_fullStr Comparison of two rebound tonometers in healthy horses
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two rebound tonometers in healthy horses
title_short Comparison of two rebound tonometers in healthy horses
title_sort comparison of two rebound tonometers in healthy horses
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7540552/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32888242
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/vop.12819
work_keys_str_mv AT mustikkaminnap comparisonoftworeboundtonometersinhealthyhorses
AT pietilaelinam comparisonoftworeboundtonometersinhealthyhorses
AT mykkanenannak comparisonoftworeboundtonometersinhealthyhorses
AT gronthalthomassc comparisonoftworeboundtonometersinhealthyhorses