ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2022
Experimental infection of cats with
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 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experimental Infection in Mice withPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Cryptosporidiosis: A global threat to human and animal health.Open veterinary journal · 2025Review
- Analysis of codon usage bias of thioredoxin in apicomplexan protozoa.Parasites & vectors · 2023Article
- High subtelomeric GC content in the genome of a zoonoticMicrobial genomics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aims of this study were to experimentally inoculate cats with
methodsCryptosporidium felis oocysts were concentrated from the feces of a naturally infected cat and orally inoculated into six cats that tested negative for
resultsA total of 41 samples were tested, 25 of which were compared by FA and qPCR. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinical signs were not recognized in any of the cats for the duration of the study. FA was insensitive compared with qPCR for detecting cats with subclinical
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.