ArticleThe Journal of small animal practice2007
High-cell-passage canine coronavirus vaccine providing sterilising immunity.
Article in The Journal of small animal practice, 2007. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaccination against coronaviruses in domestic animals.Vaccine · 2020Review
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
objectivesTo evaluate the ability of a high-cell-passage canine coronavirus vaccine to immunise dogs against challenge with a field isolate of the virus.
methodsThree dogs that had previously tested seronegative and virus-negative for canine coronavirus were inoculated twice, at 21-day intervals, with the vaccine and kept under observation. Two seronegative and virus-negative dogs served as unvaccinated controls. For safety tests, two additional dogs were inoculated oronasally with 10 times the vaccinal dose and no reactions were observed. Faecal samples were collected daily from the vaccinated dogs after the first and second inoculations. Both vaccinated and control dogs were challenged two weeks after the second vaccination with a field canine coronavirus strain. Blood samples were collected for serological tests before vaccination and at weekly intervals after vaccinations and challenge.
resultsVirus was not detected in faecal samples after the first or second vaccinations by virus isolation assays and PCR. Significantly, the vaccinated dogs did not have clinical signs after challenge and no virus shedding was observed. The two unvaccinated control dogs had moderate enteritis, and virus was detected in cell cultures starting from three days postchallenge (dog 1) and two days postchallenge (dog 2), and by PCR for 23 median days. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study showed the efficacy of a high-cell-passage canine coronavirus vaccine in preventing infection of dogs by virulent virus and, specifically, its ability to induce sterilising immunity.
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.