Trial reportJournal of veterinary internal medicine
Comparison of manual and suction pump aspiration techniques for performing bronchoalveolar lavage in 18 dogs with respiratory tract disease.
Trial report in Journal of veterinary internal medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-time PCR versus culture of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid for detecting Bordetella bronchiseptica in dogs with persistent lower respiratory signs: a retrospective study of 23 cases.Veterinary research communications · 2025Article
- Non-bronchoscopic Bronchoalveolar Lavage as a Refinement for Safely Obtaining High-quality Samples from Macaques.Comparative medicine · 2020Article
- Aspiration techniques for bronchoalveolar lavage in translational respiratory research: Paving the way to develop novel therapeutic moieties.Journal of biological methods · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferent aspiration techniques to retrieve bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) affect sample quality in healthy dogs. Studies evaluating these techniques in dogs with respiratory disease are lacking.
objectivesTo compare sample quality of BALF acquired by manual aspiration (MA) and suction pump aspiration (SPA). ANIMALS: Eighteen client-owned dogs with respiratory disease.
methodsRandomized, blinded prospective clinical trial. Manual aspiration was performed with a 35-mL syringe attached directly to the bronchoscope biopsy channel and SPA was performed with a maximum of 50 mmHg negative pressure applied to the bronchoscope suction valve using the suction trap connection. Both aspiration techniques were performed in each dog on contralateral lung lobes, utilizing 2 mL/kg lavage volumes per site. Samples of BALF were analyzed by percentage of retrieved infusate, total nucleated cell count (TNCC), differential cell count, semiquantitative assessment of slide quality, and diagnosis score. Data were compared by paired Student's t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, chi-squared test, and ANOVA. Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to assess agreement.
resultsThe percentage of retrieved BALF (P = .001) was significantly higher for SPA than MA. Substantial agreement was found between cytologic classification of BALF obtained with MA and SPA (kappa = 0.615). There was no significant difference in rate of definitive diagnosis achieved with cytologic assessment between techniques (P = .78). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Suction pump aspiration, compared to MA, improved BALF retrieval, but did not significantly affect the rate of diagnostic success of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in dogs with pulmonary disease.
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.