ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2019
Comparison of 2 differently sized endoscopic biopsy forceps in the evaluation of intestinal disease in cats.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2019. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of 2 differently sized endoscopic biopsy forceps in the evaluation of intestinal disease in cats.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2019Article
- ACVIM consensus statement guidelines on diagnosing and distinguishing low-grade neoplastic from inflammatory lymphocytic chronic enteropathies in 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn clinical practice, histopathological diagnosis of chronic intestinal disease is challenging because of difficulty in obtaining adequate duodenal samples. At present, no studies have investigated the influence of biopsy forceps size on sample quality in cats.
objectivesDuodenal biopsy using larger biopsy forceps (2.4 mm) will provide higher quality samples. ANIMALS: Fifty client-owned cats underwent endoscopy of the upper gastrointestinal tract for evaluation of chronic gastrointestinal signs, with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or intestinal lymphoma as differential diagnoses.
methodsFor each cat, duodenal biopsy specimens were obtained using both small (1.8 mm) and large (2.4 mm) forceps and evaluated for adequacy, orientation, the presence of artifacts, villi morphology, the presence of inflammation, and neoplastic infiltration.
resultsThe percentage of adequate and evaluable biopsy specimens obtained using the larger forceps was significantly higher than that collected using the smaller forceps. Agreement between the forceps was variable for histological features and substantial in the case of lymphoma. However, in case of disagreement, the proper diagnosis usually was achieved only with the larger biopsy forceps. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Use of a larger biopsy forceps allows collection of a higher percentage of adequate and evaluable biopsy specimens compared to the commonly used smaller forceps and indirectly decreases the percentage of artifacts and increases the percentage of samples with evaluable villi. The use of a larger forceps could be helpful to obtain high-quality samples and improve diagnostic accuracy.
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.