Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24857253›Full record

ReviewVeterinary journal (London, England : 1997)2014

An update on feline infectious peritonitis: diagnostics and therapeutics.

Niels C Pedersen

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary journal (London, England : 1997), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 118 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
118citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

118 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 208 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

58 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Niels C PedersenCenter for Companion Animal Health, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA. Electronic address: ncpedersen@ucdavis.edu.
University of California System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review is concerned with what has been learned about feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) diagnostics and therapeutics since the publication of an extensive overview of literature covering the period 1963-2009. Although progress has been made in both areas, obtaining a definitive diagnosis of FIP remains a problem for those veterinarians and/or cat owners who require absolute certainty. This review will cover both indirect and direct diagnostic tests for the disease and will emphasize their limitations, as well as their specificity and sensitivity. There is still no effective treatment for FIP, although there are both claims that such therapies exist and glimmers of hope coming from new therapies that are under research. FIP has also been identified in wild felids and FIP-like disease is now a growing problem among pet ferrets.

Indexed as

AnimalsCatsCoronavirus, FelineFelidaeFeline Infectious PeritonitisFerretsDiagnosticsFeline enteric coronavirusFeline infectious peritonitisFeline infectious peritonitis virusTherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID24857253
PMCPMC7110619
OpenAlexW2063380206

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.