Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35158723›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Quality of Life Measurement in Dogs and Cats: A Scoping Review of Generic Tools.

Annabelle E Fulmer, Linda J Laven, Kate E Hill

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors.

Annabelle E FulmerMaroubra Veterinary Hospital, 88 Bunnerong Rd, Pagewood, Sydney, NSW 2035, Australia.
Linda J LavenTāwharau Ora, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, P.O. Box 11222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand.
Kate E HillTāwharau Ora, School of Veterinary Science, Massey University, P.O. Box 11222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-1549-8828

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quality of life (QoL) assessment in companion animals is an essential aspect of veterinary medicine that helps guide treatment decisions and ensures optimal animal welfare. Veterinarians and pet owners can use disease-specific or generic QoL assessment tools to evaluate an individual animal's QoL. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and assess published generic QoL assessment tools suitable for use in either dogs or cats. A literature search identified 82 relevant publications, nine of which contained appropriate generic QoL assessment tools in accordance with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each tool was assessed for evidence of psychometric evaluation including statistical analysis, reliability and validity. Commonly included items were determined to highlight potential important aspects of dog or cat QoL. Five of the nine publications used a statistical method such as factor analysis to determine tool design and structure. Although at least one aspect of reliability and validity was assessed for seven of the tools, none were validated across all measures. Two of the publications contained minimal to no statistical analysis. Common items for both dogs and cats included those regarding activity level, the desire for interaction and appetite. In addition, common items for cats included those regarding mood and grooming. This scoping review identified and evaluated currently available generic QoL assessment tools, providing a reference point for future tool development and validation.

Indexed as

catsdogsquality of lifequality of life measurementquestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID35158723
PMCPMC8833627

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.