ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide, cardiac troponin-I, and point-of-care ultrasound in dogs with cardiac and noncardiac causes of nonhemorrhagic ascites.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of gastrointestinal health and the coagulation system in dogs with right-sided heart disease: an exploratory study.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide, cardiac troponin-I, and point-of-care ultrasound in dogs with cardiac and noncardiac causes of nonhemorrhagic ascites.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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNonhemorrhagic ascites (NHA) can be caused by cardiac diseases (cNHA) and noncardiac diseases (ncNHA). N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), cardiac troponin-I (cTnI), and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) may differentiate between cNHA and ncNHA. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesWe compared NT-proBNP and cTnI concentrations as well as POCUS findings in dogs presented with cNHA and ncNHA. ANIMALS: Dogs (n = 60) were enrolled based on identification of NHA with an effusion packed cell volume < 10%.
methodsBlood samples were collected and POCUS was performed on all dogs. Dogs were diagnosed with cNHA (n = 28) or ncNHA (n = 32) based on echocardiography. The cNHA group was subdivided into cardiac non-pericardial disease (n = 17) and pericardial disease (n = 11).
resultsThe NT-proBNP concentration (median; range pmol/L) was significantly higher in the cNHA group (4510; 250-10 000) compared to the ncNHA group (739.5; 250-10 000; P = .01), with a sensitivity of 53.8% and specificity of 85.7% using a cut-off of 4092 pmol/L. The NT-proBNP concentrations were significantly higher in the cardiac non-pericardial disease group (8339; 282-10 000) compared with the pericardial disease group (692.5; 250-4928; P = .002). A significant difference in cTnI concentration (median; range ng/L) between the cNHA group (300; 23-112 612) and ncNHA group (181; 17-37 549) was not detected (P = .41). A significantly higher number of dogs had hepatic venous and caudal vena cava distension in the cNHA group compared to the ncNHA group, respectively (18/28 vs 3/29, P < .0001 and 13/27 vs 2/29, P < .001). Gall bladder wall edema was not significantly different between groups (4/28 vs 3/29, P = .74). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: NT-proBNP concentration and POCUS help distinguish between cNHA and ncNHA.
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.