Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24361945›Full record

ReviewJournal of feline medicine and surgery2014

Diagnostic laparoscopy in the cat: 1. Rationale and equipment.

Elise Robertson, David Twedt, Craig Webb

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Pressure-Volume Curve during Capnoperitoneum in Cats.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Elise RobertsonFeline Vet Referrals/Endoscopy Vet Referrals, Brighton, East Sussex BN41 1DQ, UK.
David Twedt
Craig Webb

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

practical relevanceThe integration of minimally invasive techniques into feline practice seems to be an intuitive step forward, especially for those cases where the owner may be reluctant to subject their cat to major surgery 'just for a biopsy'. Although ultrasound is frequently employed as a diagnostic tool in similar cases, this modality can only provide information on gross abnormalities in organ size and shape, echogenicity and internal architecture; even with ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration a definitive diagnosis is rarely achieved. So the clinician and owner are left with unanswered questions that are central to the diagnosis, the most appropriate treatment to pursue and the prognosis for the cat. Laparoscopy does require anesthesia and is more expensive than ultrasound; however, when performed correctly, it is only marginally more invasive and vastly more informative, with a proven track record of minimal morbidity. AUDIENCE: This article is aimed at all feline practitioners, from first opinion through to the referral setting. It is intended to encourage practitioners untrained in minimally invasive procedures to seek formalized training, especially those who want to expand their diagnostic capabilities. For those already performing minimally invasive surgery, it describes how laparoscopic techniques can be applied to many feline gastrointestinal cases. EVIDENCE BASE: Information provided in this article is based on published literature, comprising original studies, case review series and textbook chapters, and the authors' own clinical experience.

Indexed as

AnimalsCat DiseasesCatsLaparoscopesLaparoscopy

Identifiers

PMID24361945
PMCPMC11383072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.