ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2022
Assessment of the cutaneous trunci muscle reflex in healthy cats: comparison of results acquired by clinicians and cat owners.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Demographics, clinical findings and diagnoses of cranial thoracic myelopathies (T1-T6 vertebrae) in cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Feasibility and Validity of Postural Reaction Tests in the Neurological Examination in Healthy Rabbits.Veterinary sciences · 2023Article
- Does preappointment gabapentin affect neurological examination findings? A prospective, randomized and blinded study in healthy cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study aimed to evaluate the cutaneous trunci muscle reflex (CTMR) in healthy cats using methods performed by the clinician and the cat's owner at home.
methodsA total of 55 healthy cats without neurological abnormalities were included in this study. CTMR evaluation was performed sequentially in each cat using three methods by a clinician: method A, pinch skin with a straight 14 cm Crile haemostat forceps; method B, displace fur with the tip of a pen or haemostat forceps; and method C, poke skin with the tip of a straightened paper clip. The normal response rates for each method were obtained and compared. A 'CTMR performance score' was assigned for each cat, reflecting the presence of a normal CTMR response using one or more of the three methods. An 'owner performance score' was also obtained, reflecting the response of the CTMR when performed at home by the cat owner. The two scores were compared as paired data for each cat.
resultsThe CTMR was elicited normally in 17 (31%), 27 (49%) and 16 (29%) cats using methods A, B and C, respectively. Method B delivered a significantly higher percentage of normal responses. When comparing the 'CTMR performance score' and 'owner performance score', the percentage of normal responses was 60% and 100%, respectively, which was significantly different. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The overall normal response rate of the CTMR in healthy feline subjects was low when performed by a clinician, regardless of the method applied. Conversely, a high percentage of normal responses was obtained by cat owners performing CTMR at home, potentially indicating the impact of stress on the CTMR performance.
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.