ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2022
Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Molecular Detection ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Frequency of Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Borrelia spp., and coinfections in Ixodes ricinus ticks collected from dogs and cats in Germany.Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
- Prevalence of tick-borne bacterial pathogens in Germany-has the situation changed after a decade?Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Granulocytic anaplasmosis in cats from central Europe and molecular characterization of feline Anaplasma phagocytophilum strains by ankA gene, groEL gene and multilocus sequence typing.Parasites & vectors · 2023Article
- Vector-Borne Pathogens in Stray Cats in Eastern Germany (Thuringia).Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Molecular analysis of blood-associated pathogens in European wildcats (International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2022Article
- Seroprevalence and Risk Factors ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectives
methodsThis study included the results of direct (PCR) and indirect detection methods (immunofluorescence antibody tests [IFAT]) requested by veterinarians in Germany, Austria and Switzerland between 2008 and 2020 from the LABOKLIN laboratory (Bad Kissingen, Germany). The veterinarians treating the PCR-positive cats were contacted by telephone to enquire about their clinical signs, laboratory findings, management and outcomes.
resultsIn total, 244/1636 cats (15%) tested positive by direct (PCR: n = 27/725 [4%]) and/or indirect detection methods (IFAT: n = 221/956 [23%]). In 18/26 cats with PCR results positive for CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Infections with
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.