Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37203881›Full record

ArticleJournal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc2023

Comparison of 2 sampling methods for molecular detection of bacteria or fungi from feline hair and scale specimens.

Aline E Santana, Sheila M F Torres, Matheus de O Costa

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 94% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Aline E SantanaDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-4678-7924
Sheila M F TorresVeterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, USA.
Matheus de O CostaLarge Animal Clinical Sciences, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9621-1977
University of Minnesota · USUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Skin diseases of cats are among the most frequent client motivations for a veterinary consultation. Both carpet and toothbrush sampling are commonly used to obtain hair and scale samples for microbiologic testing. Although molecular tests have become more accessible and more widely used by clinicians, the ideal collection method for clinical specimens is unclear. To assess their performance in retrieving microbial DNA from clinical samples, we compared the bacterial and fungal DNA load in hair and skin scale samples collected using carpet or toothbrush methods. We evaluated sample DNA yield using fluorometry, spectrophotometry, and quantitative PCR. Despite no measurable differences in sample weight, toothbrush samples yielded significantly higher bacterial (

Indexed as

BacteriaHairAnimalsCatsDNA, FungalFungiDNA, Fungalbacteriacatsdermatologyfungihairmolecular testing

Identifiers

PMID37203881
PMCPMC10331397
OpenAlexW4377093456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.