↓ Skip to main content

Prospective clinical study to evaluate an oscillometric blood pressure monitor in pet rabbits

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prospective clinical study to evaluate an oscillometric blood pressure monitor in pet rabbits
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12917-018-1369-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Bellini, Irene A. Veladiano, Magdalena Schrank, Matteo Candaten, Antonio Mollo

Abstract

Rabbits are particularly sensitive to develop hypotension during sedation or anaesthesia. Values of systolic or mean non-invasive arterial blood pressure below 80 or 60 mmHg respectively are common under anaesthesia despite an ongoing surgery. A reliable method of monitoring arterial blood pressure is extremely important, although invasive technique is not always possible due to the anatomy and dimension of the artery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between a new oscillometric device for non-invasive arterial blood pressure measurement and the invasive method. Moreover the trending ability of the device, ability to identify changes in the same direction with the invasive methods, was evaluated as well as the sensibility of the device in identifying hypotension arbitrarily defined as invasive arterial blood pressure below 80 or 60 mmHg. Bland-Altman analysis for repeated measurements showed a poor agreement between the two methods; the oscillometric device overestimated the invasive arterial blood pressure, particularly at high arterial pressure values. The same analysis repeated considering oscillometric measurement that match invasive mean pressure lower or equal to 60 mmHg showed a decrease in biases and limits of agreement between methods. The trending ability of the device, evaluated with both the 4-quadrant plot and the polar plot was poor. Concordance rate of mean arterial blood pressure was higher than systolic and diastolic pressure although inferior to 90%. The sensibility of the device in detecting hypotension defined as systolic or mean invasive arterial blood pressure lower than 80 or 60 mmHg was superior for mean oscillometric pressure rather than systolic. A sensitivity of 92% was achieved with an oscillometric measurement for mean pressure below 65 mmHg instead of 60 mmHg. Non-invasive systolic blood pressure is less sensitive as indicator of hypotension regardless of the cutoff limit considered. Although mean invasive arterial blood pressure is overestimated by the device, the sensitivity of this non-invasive oscillometric monitor in detecting invasive mean pressure below 60 mmHg is acceptable but a cutoff value of 65 mmHg needs to be used.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Master 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 15 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 15 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2021.
All research outputs
#14,094,152
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#1,024
of 3,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,050
of 330,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#37
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,067 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.