ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2019
Evaluation of a structured individualised protocol as a potential cost-effective diagnostic and therapeutic approach to chronic diarrhoea in the dog.
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2019. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical benefit of faecal microbiota transplantation administered via a single retention enema as an adjunctive treatment in dogs with chronic enteropathy: a randomised controlled trial.The Journal of small animal practice · 2026Article
- Insights into the interplay between gut microbiota and lipid metabolism in the obesity management of canines and felines.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Veterinarians' Self-Reported Behaviors and Attitudes toward Spectrum of Care Practices.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- The Mechanism of Important Components in Canine Fecal Microbiota Transplantation.Veterinary sciences · 2022Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic investigation and management of chronic diarrhoea in dogs can be cost-prohibitive to many owners. The objectives of this study were to evaluate evidence-based, individualised diagnostic and therapeutic protocols for management of dogs with chronic diarrhoea, where financial constraints dictate a budget-limited approach and where more expensive approaches are deferred until simple affordable protocols are unsuccessful. Twenty-two client-owned dogs with chronic (minimum 2 weeks duration) untreated small, large or mixed small/large bowel diarrhoea were enrolled in a budget-limited step-wise management protocol (maximum expenditure $300 over 6 weeks), with diagnostic testing and therapeutic trials managed in an individualised and evidence-based fashion. Success was defined as complete resolution of diarrhoea for a minimum of 1 month. Dogs that failed to respond to a budget-limited protocol were then enrolled for complete, referral-level management. Four dogs exited the project early (one death due to caval syndrome, three lost to follow-up). Thirteen out of the remaining 18 dogs had complete resolution of diarrhoea utilising a budget-limited approach (success rate 72.2%, confidence intervals 46.5-90.3%) and five dogs were moved on to a referral-level investigation, with complete resolution of diarrhoea in four out of five. Seventeen out of the 18 dogs therefore responded to a protocol based on a budget-limited approach followed by extensive investigation only if needed, for an overall success rate of 94.4% (CI 72.7-99.9%). Comprehensive investigation of chronic diarrhoea can be deferred while simple affordable diagnostics and therapeutic trials are conducted in stable canine patients and, often, an extensive management approach will be unnecessary.
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.