Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36171232›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Two valid and reliable tests for monitoring age-related memory performance and neophobia differences in dogs.

Patrizia Piotti, Andrea Piseddu, Enrica Aguzzoli, Andrea Sommese, Eniko Kubinyi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Patrizia Piotti *Department of Ethology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/c, 1117, Budapest, Hungary.
Andrea Piseddu *Department of Ethology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/c, 1117, Budapest, Hungary.
Enrica AguzzoliDepartment of Ethology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/c, 1117, Budapest, Hungary.
Andrea SommeseDepartment of Ethology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/c, 1117, Budapest, Hungary.
Eniko KubinyiDepartment of Ethology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/c, 1117, Budapest, Hungary. eniko.kubinyi@ttk.elte.hu.

Funding

European Research Council 680040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prolonged lifespan of companion dogs has resulted in increased behavioural and physical challenges linked to old age. The development of behavioural tests to identify and monitor age-related differences has begun. However, standardised testing requires validation. The present study aimed to assess external validity, interobserver reliability, and test-retest reliability of an indoor test battery for the rapid assessment of age-related behavioural differences in dogs. Two experimenters tested young dogs (N = 20, mean age ± SD = 2.7 ± 0.4 years) and old dogs (N = 18, mean age ± SD = 11.8 ± 1.3 years) in the test battery once and then again after two weeks. Our results found external validity for two subtests out of six. On both test occasions, old dogs committed more errors than young dogs in a memory subtest and showed more object avoidance when encountering a novel object. Interobserver reliability and test-retest reliability was high. We conclude that the Memory and Novel object subtests are valid and reliable for monitoring age-related memory performance and object neophobic differences in dogs.

Indexed as

Behavior Rating ScaleCognitionAnimalsDogsPetsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID36171232
PMCPMC9519567

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.