Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33803871›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

A Systematic Review of the Methods of Assessment of Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux in Anaesthetized Dogs.

Anna Carolina Fernandez Alasia, Olivier Levionnois, Mathieu Raillard

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anna Carolina Fernandez AlasiaSchool of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, Evelyn Williams Building No B10, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Olivier LevionnoisAnaesthesiology Section, Department of Clinical Veterinary Sciences, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Berne, 3012 Berne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0253-4682
Mathieu RaillardSchool of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, Evelyn Williams Building No B10, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4057-9312
The University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We reviewed the definitions and methods of assessment of gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) in anaesthetized dogs. Three databases were used. Titles and abstracts were screened by two of the authors independently. A total of 22 studies was included in the analysis. The definition of GOR implied the presence of fluids not reaching the mouth or nose in the oesophagus in all studies. Most studies considered a change in pH using oesophageal pH meters as the sole method of assessment. Calibration of the pH probe was inconsistently reported. The position of the tip of the oesophageal probe was inconsistent and not always precisely described. The correct positioning in the intended location was verified in a limited number of studies. Some studies considered that GOR had happened for changes in pH below 4.0 or above 7.5 while others considered that GOR had happened when the pH dropped below 4.0 only. Some studies stated that the pH change had to be sustained for a minimum period of time (20 or 30 s) whereas others did not mention any duration. The variability of definitions and methods of assessment of GOR in anaesthetized dogs precludes meaningful comparison of the findings. Re-evaluation and uniformization of the methods appear necessary.

Indexed as

anaesthesiacomplicationsdogsgastro-oesophageal refluxregurgitationrisk

Identifiers

PMID33803871
PMCPMC8003202
OpenAlexW3138525008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.