使用回弹式眼压计和眼压计以及四种不同的物理约束方法测量新西兰白兔眼压的比较。

IF 1.1 4区农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES

New Zealand veterinary journal Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-26 DOI:10.1080/00480169.2023.2224277

S Okur, L E Yanmaz, M G Senocak, U Ersöz, A Gölgeli, F Turgut, O T Orhun, Y Kocaman

{"title":"使用回弹式眼压计和眼压计以及四种不同的物理约束方法测量新西兰白兔眼压的比较。","authors":"S Okur, L E Yanmaz, M G Senocak, U Ersöz, A Gölgeli, F Turgut, O T Orhun, Y Kocaman","doi":"10.1080/00480169.2023.2224277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained in rabbits using rebound (TV) and applanation (TPV) tonometers with four different methods of physical restraint.Methods: A total of 20 New Zealand White rabbits (40 eyes) were included in this study. IOP readings were obtained from both eyes using the two different tonometers. The rabbits were placed on a table and restrained by wrapping in a cloth (Method I), by scruffing with rear support (Method II), by wrapping in a cloth and cupped in the hands (Method III), or by a box restrainer (Method IV).Results: The mean IOP measurement obtained by TPV was higher than that obtained with the TV for all handling methods. Mean differences (TV-TPV, in mmHg) in IOP were -5.3 (95% Cl = -6.5 to -4.1) for Method 1, -4.7 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.29) for Method II, -4.9 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.7) for Method III and -7.6 (95% Cl = -9.2 to -5.9) for Method IV. Using the TV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was higher than for Method I (mean difference 2.1 (95% Cl = 1.1-3.1)), whereas using the TPV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was significantly higher than Method I, II, and III (mean differences: 4.4 (95% Cl = 2.6-5.9), 3.7 (95% Cl = 2-5.3) and 3.8 (95% Cl = 2-5.4), respectively). According to Bland-Altman plots, IOP readings for TPV tended to be higher than those for TV with all handling methods, but with a lack of agreement. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement for the differences between TV and TPV were -5.4 mmHg (-12.5-1.9 mmHg), -4.7 mmHg (-12.9-3.5 mmHg), -4.9 mmHg (-12-2.2 mmHg), and -7.5 mmHg (-17.4-2.3 mmHg), with Methods I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Comparing TV and TPV, only 7.5%, 12.5%, 27.5%, and 15% of IOP measurements from 20 rabbits were within the range considered clinically acceptable for IOP (± 2 mmHg) for Method I, II, III, and IV, respectively.Conclusion and clinical relevance: In conclusion, the physical restraint method should be recorded when IOP is measured in rabbits, and TV and TPV tonometers cannot be used interchangeably (high bias and low proportion of measurements within ± 2 mmHg).","PeriodicalId":19322,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand veterinary journal","volume":"71 5","pages":"251-258"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of intraocular pressure in New Zealand White rabbits measured using rebound and applanation tonometers and four different methods of physical restraint.\",\"authors\":\"S Okur, L E Yanmaz, M G Senocak, U Ersöz, A Gölgeli, F Turgut, O T Orhun, Y Kocaman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00480169.2023.2224277\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aims: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained in rabbits using rebound (TV) and applanation (TPV) tonometers with four different methods of physical restraint.Methods: A total of 20 New Zealand White rabbits (40 eyes) were included in this study. IOP readings were obtained from both eyes using the two different tonometers. The rabbits were placed on a table and restrained by wrapping in a cloth (Method I), by scruffing with rear support (Method II), by wrapping in a cloth and cupped in the hands (Method III), or by a box restrainer (Method IV).Results: The mean IOP measurement obtained by TPV was higher than that obtained with the TV for all handling methods. Mean differences (TV-TPV, in mmHg) in IOP were -5.3 (95% Cl = -6.5 to -4.1) for Method 1, -4.7 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.29) for Method II, -4.9 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.7) for Method III and -7.6 (95% Cl = -9.2 to -5.9) for Method IV. Using the TV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was higher than for Method I (mean difference 2.1 (95% Cl = 1.1-3.1)), whereas using the TPV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was significantly higher than Method I, II, and III (mean differences: 4.4 (95% Cl = 2.6-5.9), 3.7 (95% Cl = 2-5.3) and 3.8 (95% Cl = 2-5.4), respectively). According to Bland-Altman plots, IOP readings for TPV tended to be higher than those for TV with all handling methods, but with a lack of agreement. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement for the differences between TV and TPV were -5.4 mmHg (-12.5-1.9 mmHg), -4.7 mmHg (-12.9-3.5 mmHg), -4.9 mmHg (-12-2.2 mmHg), and -7.5 mmHg (-17.4-2.3 mmHg), with Methods I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Comparing TV and TPV, only 7.5%, 12.5%, 27.5%, and 15% of IOP measurements from 20 rabbits were within the range considered clinically acceptable for IOP (± 2 mmHg) for Method I, II, III, and IV, respectively.Conclusion and clinical relevance: In conclusion, the physical restraint method should be recorded when IOP is measured in rabbits, and TV and TPV tonometers cannot be used interchangeably (high bias and low proportion of measurements within ± 2 mmHg).\",\"PeriodicalId\":19322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Zealand veterinary journal\",\"volume\":\"71 5\",\"pages\":\"251-258\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Zealand veterinary journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2023.2224277\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand veterinary journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2023.2224277","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的：比较使用回弹式眼压计（TV）和滴视式眼压计（TPV）测量兔子眼压时四种不同的物理约束方法：本研究共纳入 20 只新西兰白兔（40 只眼）。使用两种不同的眼压计测量兔子双眼的眼压读数。将兔子放在桌子上，用布包裹（方法 I）、用后部支撑物拧住（方法 II）、用布包裹并用手掐住（方法 III）或用箱式束缚器（方法 IV）对兔子进行束缚：结果：在所有处理方法中，用 TPV 测量的平均眼压均高于用 TV 测量的平均眼压。方法一的平均眼压差异（TV-TPV，单位：毫米汞柱）为-5.3（95% Cl = -6.5至-4.1），方法二为-4.7（95% Cl = -6.2至-3.29），方法三为-4.9（95% Cl = -6.2至-3.7），方法四为-7.6（95% Cl = -9.2至-5.9）。使用电视眼压计，方法 IV 的平均眼压高于方法 I（平均差异为 2.1 (95% Cl = 1.1-3.1)），而使用 TPV 眼压计，方法 IV 的平均眼压显著高于方法 I、II 和 III（平均差异为 4.4 (95% Cl = 4.4)）：4.4（95% Cl = 2.6-5.9）、3.7（95% Cl = 2-5.3）和 3.8（95% Cl = 2-5.4））。根据 Bland-Altman 图，在所有处理方法中，冠状静脉压的眼压读数往往高于电视的读数，但缺乏一致性。在方法 I、II、III 和 IV 中，TV 和 TPV 之间的平均差和 95% 的一致性范围分别为-5.4 mmHg（-12.5-1.9 mmHg）、-4.7 mmHg（-12.9-3.5 mmHg）、-4.9 mmHg（-12-2.2 mmHg）和-7.5 mmHg（-17.4-2.3 mmHg）。对比 TV 和 TPV，方法 I、II、III 和 IV 分别只有 7.5%、12.5%、27.5% 和 15%的 20 只兔子的眼压测量值在临床可接受的眼压范围内（± 2 mmHg）：总之，在对兔子进行眼压测量时，应记录物理约束法，电视眼压计和 TPV 眼压计不能互换使用（偏差大，± 2 mmHg 范围内的测量比例低）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Comparison of intraocular pressure in New Zealand White rabbits measured using rebound and applanation tonometers and four different methods of physical restraint.

Aims: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained in rabbits using rebound (TV) and applanation (TPV) tonometers with four different methods of physical restraint.

Methods: A total of 20 New Zealand White rabbits (40 eyes) were included in this study. IOP readings were obtained from both eyes using the two different tonometers. The rabbits were placed on a table and restrained by wrapping in a cloth (Method I), by scruffing with rear support (Method II), by wrapping in a cloth and cupped in the hands (Method III), or by a box restrainer (Method IV).

Results: The mean IOP measurement obtained by TPV was higher than that obtained with the TV for all handling methods. Mean differences (TV-TPV, in mmHg) in IOP were -5.3 (95% Cl = -6.5 to -4.1) for Method 1, -4.7 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.29) for Method II, -4.9 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.7) for Method III and -7.6 (95% Cl = -9.2 to -5.9) for Method IV. Using the TV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was higher than for Method I (mean difference 2.1 (95% Cl = 1.1-3.1)), whereas using the TPV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was significantly higher than Method I, II, and III (mean differences: 4.4 (95% Cl = 2.6-5.9), 3.7 (95% Cl = 2-5.3) and 3.8 (95% Cl = 2-5.4), respectively). According to Bland-Altman plots, IOP readings for TPV tended to be higher than those for TV with all handling methods, but with a lack of agreement. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement for the differences between TV and TPV were -5.4 mmHg (-12.5-1.9 mmHg), -4.7 mmHg (-12.9-3.5 mmHg), -4.9 mmHg (-12-2.2 mmHg), and -7.5 mmHg (-17.4-2.3 mmHg), with Methods I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Comparing TV and TPV, only 7.5%, 12.5%, 27.5%, and 15% of IOP measurements from 20 rabbits were within the range considered clinically acceptable for IOP (± 2 mmHg) for Method I, II, III, and IV, respectively.

Conclusion and clinical relevance: In conclusion, the physical restraint method should be recorded when IOP is measured in rabbits, and TV and TPV tonometers cannot be used interchangeably (high bias and low proportion of measurements within ± 2 mmHg).

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

New Zealand veterinary journal 农林科学-兽医学

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12-24 weeks

期刊介绍： The New Zealand Veterinary Journal (NZVJ) is an international journal publishing high quality peer-reviewed articles covering all aspects of veterinary science, including clinical practice, animal welfare and animal health. The NZVJ publishes original research findings, clinical communications (including novel case reports and case series), rapid communications, correspondence and review articles, originating from New Zealand and internationally. Topics should be relevant to, but not limited to, New Zealand veterinary and animal science communities, and include the disciplines of infectious disease, medicine, surgery and the health, management and welfare of production and companion animals, horses and New Zealand wildlife. All submissions are expected to meet the highest ethical and welfare standards, as detailed in the Journal’s instructions for authors.