Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25889006›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2015

Comparison of risk factors for seropositivity to feline immunodeficiency virus and feline leukemia virus among cats: a case-case study.

Bimal K Chhetri, Olaf Berke, David L Pearl, Dorothee Bienzle

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 2020 AAFP Feline Retrovirus Testing and Management Guidelines.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2020
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Temporal, Spatial, and Genomic Analyses ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Bimal K ChhetriDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada. bchhetri@uoguelph.ca.
Olaf BerkeDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada. oberke@uoguelph.ca.
David L PearlDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada. dpearl@uoguelph.ca.
Dorothee BienzleDepartment of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada. dbienzle@uoguelph.ca.
University of Guelph · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFeline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) and feline leukemia virus (FeLV) are reported to have similar risk factors and similar recommendations apply to manage infected cats. However, some contrasting evidence exists in the literature with regard to commonly reported risk factors. In this study, we investigated whether the known risk factors for FIV and FeLV infections have a stronger effect for either infection. This retrospective study included samples from 696 cats seropositive for FIV and 593 cats seropositive for FeLV from the United States and Canada. Data were collected during two cross sectional studies, where cats were tested using IDEXX FIV/FeLV ELISA kits. To compare the effect of known risk factors for FIV infection compared to FeLV, using a case-case study design, random intercept logistic regression models were fit including cats' age, sex, neuter status, outdoor exposure, health status and type of testing facility as independent variables. A random intercept for testing facility was included to account for clustering expected in testing practices at the individual clinics and shelters.

resultsIn the multivariable random intercept model, the odds of FIV compared to FeLV positive ELISA results were greater for adults (OR = 2.09, CI: 1.50-2.92), intact males (OR = 3.14, CI: 1.85-3.76), neutered males (OR = 2.68, CI: 1.44- 3.14), cats with outdoor access (OR = 2.58, CI: 1.85-3.76) and lower for cats with clinical illness (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.52-0.90). The variance components obtained from the model indicated clustering at the testing facility level.

conclusionsRisk factors that have a greater effect on FIV seropositivity include adulthood, being male (neutered or not) and having access to outdoors, while clinical illness was a stronger predictor for FeLV seropositivity. Further studies are warranted to assess the implications of these results for the management and control of these infections.

Indexed as

Immunodeficiency Virus, FelineLeukemia Virus, FelineAge FactorsAnimalsCat DiseasesCatsEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleLentivirus InfectionsMaleRetrospective StudiesRetroviridae InfectionsRisk FactorsSex FactorsTumor Virus Infections

Identifiers

PMID25889006
PMCPMC4332748
OpenAlexW1965113639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.