ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2016
Cerebrospinal Nematodiasis in 20 Camelids.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical presentation, diagnostics, treatment, and outcome of goats diagnosed with presumptive cerebrospinal nematodiasis at a veterinary teaching hospital.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2023Article
- Assessment of cerebrospinal fluid analysis and short-term survival outcomes in South American camelids: A retrospective study of 54 cases (2005-2021).Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2022Article
- Pharmacokinetics of Orally Administered Prednisolone in Alpacas.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
- Cerebrospinal nematodosis caused byJournal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInformation about the clinical and clinicopathologic aspects of cerebrospinal nematodiasis (CN) in camelids is limited. HYPOTHESIS: Clinical and therapeutic variables will be identified as factors predictive of survival. ANIMALS: Client-owned camelids suspected of having CN admitted to Purdue University between 1995 and 2015.
methodsA retrospective study was performed. A diagnosis of CN was based on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) eosinophilic pleocytosis or postmortem findings.
resultsEleven alpacas and 9 llamas met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-five percent of the camelids were male (27% castrated and 73% intact). Common clinical abnormalities included proprioceptive deficits (100% of animals), recumbency (55%), tachypnea (55%), and ataxia (40%). Among the 85% of treated animals, 100% received PO fenbendazole, and 88% received a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. The survival rate to discharge was 45%. Plasma fibrinogen concentration, creatine kinase activity, and serum creatinine concentration were significantly higher in nonsurvivors. Blood eosinophil count, platelet count, and total CO2 were significantly lower in nonsurvivors. Factors associated with survival were species, sex, absence of treatment with corticosteroids, and clinical improvement. There was no association between recumbency at admission and survival. A plasma fibrinogen concentration above >266 mg/dL was an excellent diagnostic test to predict survival in the presence of neurological signs or CSF eosinophilia.
conclusionsAlthough prognosis for CN in camelids is guarded, presence of recumbency at admission is not predictive of nonsurvival. Male camelids and llamas appear more likely to die from CN. Corticosteroid treatment is contraindicated in animals diagnosed with CN.
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.