ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2016
Comparison of 3 Handling Techniques for Endoscopically Obtained Gastric and Duodenal Biopsy Specimens: A Prospective Study in Dogs and Cats.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cold or hot snare in endoscopy - that is the question.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Comparison of 2 differently sized endoscopic biopsy forceps in the evaluation of intestinal disease in cats.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2019Article
- Characterization of intestinal fibrosis in cats with chronic inflammatory enteropathy.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
- ACVIM consensus statement guidelines on diagnosing and distinguishing low-grade neoplastic from inflammatory lymphocytic chronic enteropathies in cats.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
- Factors Affecting the Quality of Histopathologic Specimens Obtained via Small Intestinal Endoscopic Biopsy in Dogs and Cats.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimited evidence exists in the literature regarding whether a specific mount is preferable to use for processing endoscopically obtained gastrointestinal biopsy specimens. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesTo compare 3 methods of handling endoscopically obtained gastrointestinal biopsy specimens from collection to laboratory processing and to determine if any technique produced superior results. ANIMALS: Twenty-three dogs and cats presented for gastrointestinal signs.
methodsProspective study of dogs and cats presented with gastrointestinal signs to a veterinary teaching referral hospital which underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Biopsy specimens were taken from the stomach and duodenum and submitted to the laboratory using 3 techniques: mounted on a cucumber slice, mounted on a moisturized synthetic foam sponge, and floating free in formalin. The techniques were compared with regard to the specimens' width, orientation, presence of artifacts, and pathologist's confidence in diagnosis.
resultsTwenty-three patients were included, with a total of 528 biopsies collected. Specimens on cucumber slice and on sponge were significantly wider (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively) compared to those floating free in formalin (mean width of 3.81 versus 3.31 and 2.52 mm, respectively). However, specimens on synthetic sponge had significantly fewer artifacts compared to those on cucumber slice (P = .05) and those floating free in formalin (P = .02). Confidence in the diagnosis also was superior with the sponge technique over floating free specimens (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The use of mounted gastrointestinal biopsy specimens was superior over the use of specimens floating free in formalin. This technique improved the quality of the specimens and the pathologist's confidence in their histopathologic interpretation.
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.