Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34689355›Full record

ArticleJournal of morphology2022

Sand accumulation in the digestive tract of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus): The role of the appendix.

Nicole Winter, Marcus Clauss, Daryl Codron, Jürgen Hummel, Jaqueline Müller, Henning Richter, Patrick Kircher, Jean-Michel Hatt, Louise Françoise Martin

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of morphology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Nicole WinterClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3142-3535
Marcus ClaussClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3841-6207
Daryl CodronDepartment of Zoology and Entomology, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-5223-9513
Jürgen HummelDepartment of Animal Sciences, Ruminant Nutrition, Georg-August University, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8876-7745
Jaqueline MüllerClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Henning RichterClinic for Diagnostic Imaging, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3696-6993
Patrick KircherClinic for Diagnostic Imaging, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9677-0522
Jean-Michel HattClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7043-7430
Louise Françoise MartinClinic for Zoo Animals, Exotic Pets and Wildlife, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4326-0788
University of Zurich · CHUniversity of Göttingen · DEUniversity of the Free State · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We determined location and amount of accumulated sand in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) fed diets containing external (silicate) abrasives. Computed tomographic abdominal images of rabbits (n = 44) and guinea pigs (n = 16) that each received varying numbers (4-7) of different diets for 14 days each (total n = 311 computed tomographs), and radiographs of dissected GIT and presence of silica in GIT content (n = 46 animals) were evaluated. In rabbits, the majority of accumulated sand was located in the caecal appendix, an elongated, intestinal structure in the left side of the abdomen. The 'wash-back' colonic separation mechanism in rabbits may be partly responsible for a retrograde transport of sand back to the caecum, where dense, small particles accumulate in the appendix. The appendix likely acted as a reservoir of these particles, leading to significant effects not only of the momentary but also of the previous diet on recorded sand volumes in the rabbits. Guinea pigs have no caecal appendix and a colonic separation mechanism not based on a 'wash-back'. Less sand accumulation was found in their GIT without a specific location pattern, and there were less previous diet effects in this species. None of the rabbits or guinea pigs developed clinical signs of obstruction during the study, and the recorded sand volumes represented 1.0 ± 1.2% of the 14-d sand intake in rabbits and 0.2 ± 0.2% in guinea pigs. Accumulation of sand in volumes up to 10 cm

Indexed as

Animal FeedAppendixAnimalsGastrointestinal TractGuinea PigsRabbitsSandSandabrasivesdietgastrointestinal tractLagomorphaRodentiasedimentation trap

Identifiers

PMID34689355
PMCPMC9298143
OpenAlexW3209556158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.