ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2022
Retrospective Preliminary Assessment of Routine Follow-Up Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Dogs Presumptively Diagnosed With Discospondylitis.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of discospondylitis in dogs: A systematic review.The Veterinary record · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Clinical features, comparative imaging findings, treatment, and outcome in dogs with discospondylitis: A multi-institutional retrospective study.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
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: The usefulness of routine follow-up Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI-2) in asymptomatic dogs treated for discospondylitis is unknown. Methods: This cross-sectional retrospective study investigated the features of MRI-2 in a heterogeneous group of dogs treated for discospondylitis, and if these were associated with the presence or absence of clinical signs. After comparing initial MRI (MRI-1) and MRI-2, an observer, blinded to the dog's clinical signs, described the MRI-2 findings. The study population was then divided into symptomatic or asymptomatic at the time of MRI-2. Two separate observers subjectively classified the discospondylitis as active or inactive. Repeatability and interobserver agreement were evaluated. Results: A total of 25 dogs were included. At the time of MRI-2 16 (64%) dogs were asymptomatic and 9 (36%) were symptomatic. Based on MRI-2, 20 (80%) and 18 (72%) out of 25 dogs were considered to have active discospondylitis by the first and second observers, respectively. Interobserver agreement was moderate. No MRI-2 features were associated with the clinical status. The subjective classification of inactive discospondylitis was significantly associated with asymptomatic clinical status, but the classification of active discospondylitis was evenly distributed between groups. Conclusion: This study did not identify a meaningful association between the clinical status of dogs treated for presumptive discospondylitis and MRI-2 results. There were no specific MRI-2 features which were associated with the clinical status.
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.