ArticleVeterinary clinical pathology2020
Basal glucose excretion in dogs: The impact of feeding, obesity, sex, and age.
Article in Veterinary clinical pathology, 2020. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of urinary biomarkers for detection of renal tubular injury in Vipera berus-envenomated and critically ill dogs with and without clinically apparent acute kidney injury.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Effects of Oral Single-Dose Empagliflozin on Urinary Glucose, Serum β-Hydroxybutyrate, and Plasma Empagliflozin Concentrations in Healthy Adult Dogs.Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Refined protocol for newly onset identification in non-obese diabetic mice: an animal-friendly, cost-effective, and efficient alternative.Laboratory animal research · 2024Article
- Comparative Evaluation between Visual and Automated Dipstick Urinalyses in Dogs.Veterinary sciences · 2023Article
- Basal glucose excretion in dogs: The impact of feeding, obesity, sex, and age.Veterinary clinical pathology · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe urine glucose (UG) measurements are an integral part of urinalyses, especially in dogs with polyuria and polydipsia. A positive dipstick result is considered pathologic for disease. This paradigm has been challenged by new ultrasensitive tests, where the manufacturers recommend tolerating slightly positive results. It implies that, as in other species, basal urine glucose losses can exceed the lower limits of detection using ultrasensitive glucose dipsticks in healthy dogs.
objectivesWe aimed to determine whether glucose is routinely detectable using a sensitive quantitative wet chemistry method in the urine of nondiabetic, nonazotemic dogs, and investigate the impact of food intake, obesity, sex, castration status, and age.
methodsSerial UG measurements were performed in healthy clinic-owned Beagle dogs that were randomly fasted or fed. Glucose was measured in morning urine samples from normal-weight healthy and obese dogs, and the university's electronic database was searched for quantitative UG measurements (Gluco-quant Enzyme Kit/Roche Diagnostics).
resultsSmall amounts of glucose were detected in 555 (99.1%) of 560 urine samples analyzed. All urine samples from the clinic-owned Beagle dogs, as well as from privately owned obese and normal-weight healthy dogs that tested positive for glucose. The median (range) UG concentration obtained from the university's electronic database was 0.39 (0-1.55) mmol/L, and 2.2% of the samples tested negative. Feeding, obesity, gender, castration status, and age did not affect UG concentrations.
conclusionsStudies, including a larger number of healthy dogs, are warranted to define a cut-off between physiologic and pathologic glucosuria.
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.