ArticleVeterinary world2022
Comparison of two diagnostic methods through blood and urine sample analyses for the detection of ketosis in cattle.
Article in Veterinary world, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in body mass and urinary biomarkers after a long-lasting combat search and rescue military exercise performed in a tropical region.Sports medicine and health science · 2025Article
- Preoperative and Surgical Predictors of the Treatment Outcome of Dairy Cows with Right Abomasal Displacement-A Retrospective Study of 234 Cases.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Several Ecuadorian farms use human test strips (cheaper than veterinary strips) to diagnose bovine ketosis; however, their reliability is unknown. This study aimed to determine the confidence level of human strips for the detection of ketosis in bovines by comparing two diagnostic methods for ketosis: one used in bovines (gold standard) to analyze blood samples and the other used in humans to analyze urine samples. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on an Ecuadorian farm using 50 animals, ten from each of five categories: heifers, 4 months pregnant (4MP), 15 days prepartum (15DPRE), 15 days postpartum (15DPOST), and 42 days postpartum (42DPOST). Blood samples were collected through coccygeal venipuncture and urine samples were collected during spontaneous urination. BHBCheck™ assay was used to measure b-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) in the blood, whereas Combur10Test Results: BHB was detected in all animals. Based on a ketosis cutoff point of 0.8-1.2 mmol/L, 13 animals from the 15DPOST and 42DPOST categories had ketosis; AcAc was detected in the urine from nine animals originated from the two same categories. Metabolites, either BHB or AcAc, were not detected in heifers, 4MP, or 15DPRE individuals. Finally, the BHBCheck™ assay had better efficiency in detecting ketosis in animals (p<0.05) than the Combur10Test Conclusion: Combur10Test
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.