ArticleParasitology research2015
The main factors influencing canine demodicosis treatment outcome and determination of optimal therapy.
Article in Parasitology research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A European field assessment of the efficacy of fluralaner (BravectoParasites & vectors · 2020Article
- Ivermectin-compounded Feed Compared with Topical Moxidectin-Imidacloprid for Eradication ofJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main idea of this research was to evaluate the efficacy of canine demodicosis conventional treatments using mathematical analyses. All available papers published between 1980 and 2014 were used in this study. One hundred six clinical trials enrolling 3414 cases of generalized demodicosis in dogs are studied. Dogs entered in the analysis were only the ones in which the disease occurred naturally, excluding the studies in which transplantation of Demodex canis mites was done from other animals. In conventional acaricide treatments, sorted according to active substances (moxidectin, amitraz, doramectin, ivermectin, and milbemycin oxime), the way of application (spot-on, dips, orally, or subcutaneous), concentration, and interval of application were used as input parameters in mathematical modeling. Data of interest were the treatment outcome, the number of dogs that went into remission, the number of animals not responding to treatment microscopically, the average duration of therapy, the follow-up period, the number of patients with disease recurrence, the number of adverse effects, and the number of animals with side effects. Dogs lost to follow-up or when the treatment was discontinued, due to various reasons not in connection with the therapy protocol, were not considered. Statistical and mathematical analyses were applied for prediction of the drugs' effectiveness. Developed mathematical models showed satisfactorily r (2), higher than 0.87. Good evidence for recommending the use of milbemycin oxime PO (0.5 mg/kg, daily) and moxidectin spot-on (Advocate®, Bayer) weekly is found. A bit less effective therapies were based on ivermectin PO (0.5 mg/kg, daily), moxidectin PO (0.35 mg/kg, daily), and amitraz dips (0.05 % solution, weekly), respectively. It is important to keep in mind that Advocate® is recommended by the manufacturer for use in milder cases.
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.