ArticleOpen veterinary journal
Case study on Canine Atopic Dermatitis from a medico-legal viewpoint: A takeaway of knowledge for practicing veterinary clinicians.
Article in Open veterinary journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite pets are sentient beings, they are legally considered and regulated as objects in sales contracts. Therefore, the buyer is protected by law if the purchased animal should be affected by defects such as an illness or a congenital / hereditary condition that depreciates its value. In the sale of animals, a disease is legally considered a defect if it is hidden, severe, and pre-existing at the time of purchase. Canine Atopic Dermatitis (CAD) having these three requirements can, therefore, legally be considered a defect. To acquire his legal rights, the buyer must obtain a certification from the veterinarian reporting that the animal was unfit for buying within a certain time frame. Aim: This paper analyzes the legal choices that owners of dogs affected with CAD can make to help practicing veterinary clinicians comprehend and recognize this disease and because it may be considered a defect. Methods: Thirteen cases of CAD are reported and analyzed from a medico-legal point of view. Results: In cases n. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 owners of dogs affected with CAD partial or full reimbursement from the seller obtained. In cases n. 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, dog owners could not take any legal action because the diagnosis of CAD was made beyond the time limits required by law. In cases n. 1, 6, and 8, the owners decided not to take any legal action. Conclusion: The veterinarian practitioner is a key professional figure not only for diagnosing the disease within the legal time limits, but also for support the owner in medico-legal disputes. A basic medico-legal background for all veterinarians and greater involvement of them in the sale of animals as a guarantee for the buyer is recommended.
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.