ArticleThe Journal of small animal practice2023
Use of urinalysis during baseline diagnostics in dogs and cats: an open survey.
Article in The Journal of small animal practice, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antimicrobial prescribing in dogs and cats with urinary tract disease in a prospective intervention trial.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a smartphone-based colorimetric method for urinalysis dipstick readings in cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Exploring the Importance of Repeated Health Screening in Healthy Older Dogs.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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe how veterinarians utilise and perform urinalyses for dogs and cats. MATERIALS AND
methodsA survey, developed and distributed through the Veterinary Information Network, enlisted veterinarians who perform urinalyses for dogs and cats. Participants were directed to question banks based on whether urinalyses were performed in-house, by an outside diagnostic laboratory, or using an in-house automated instrument. Participants using multiple methods were directed to questions that related to the chosen methods.
resultsA total of 1059 predominantly first-opinion clinicians from the USA and Canada completed the survey. Participants performed urinalyses much less frequently than blood work during a routine examination. The most common factors preventing participants from performing a urinalysis with blood work included clients' financial constraints, difficulty obtaining urine and lack of perceived diagnostic need. The most common reasons for submission to a diagnostic laboratory included efficiency, more trusted results and convenience. Speed of obtaining results was the most common reason for performing urinalyses in-house. Of the participants who performed in-house urinalyses, fewer always performed a manual sediment examination (79%) as compared with urine-specific gravity (99%) and manual dipstick (87%). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This survey documents that urinalysis is often not used in senior patients as recommended by recent clinical guidelines for dogs and cats which can result in decreased diagnosis and impaired management of subclinical disease. There is significant variability in urinalysis methods despite veterinary guidelines promoting standardisation, and this could lead to inaccurate results.
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.