Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37089405›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2023

Mechanical ventilation in dogs and cats with tick paralysis.

Tess O'Keeffe, Rebekah E Donaldson

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Real time PCR identification ofOpen veterinary journal · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Tess O'KeeffeDepartment of Critical Care, Queensland Veterinary Specialists, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Rebekah E DonaldsonDepartment of Critical Care, Queensland Veterinary Specialists, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Respiratory failure from tick paralysis (TP) is an important cause of mortality in cats and dogs in Australia, occurring from a combination of respiratory muscle paralysis, upper respiratory tract obstruction and pulmonary disease. Patients may require positive-pressure ventilation in management of any combination of hypoxemia, hypoventilation or respiratory fatigue, but may also require airway management due to laryngeal paralysis. No single ventilation strategy is recommended due to the heterogenous disease presentations. Lung protective ventilation should be used in patients with pulmonary disease. Due to local and systemic effects of TP, patients are at higher risk of complications such as aspiration pneumonia and corneal ulceration and may have additional intravenous fluid and nutritional considerations. Treatment with hyperimmune serum is associated with improved outcomes. Prognosis is considered good with documented survival to discharge (STD) of 52.6-77% for animals with TP ventilated with lung disease and 90.5% for animals without lung disease. Median reported duration of ventilation for TP ranges from 23 to 48 h (range 3 h-10 days). The severity of individual neuromuscular signs and the presence of associated conditions such as aspiration pneumonia and laryngeal paralysis may necessitate longer periods of mechanical ventilation. This review aims to summarize the current recommendations regarding indications, management and prognosis of cats and dogs undergoing MV for TP and to identify areas for future research.

Indexed as

hypoventilationIxodes holocyluslower motor neuron diseasepositive-pressure ventilationrespiratory failure

Identifiers

PMID37089405
PMCPMC10117792
OpenAlexW4362671697

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.