ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
A 20-year scoping review of the veterinary interventional radiology and interventional endoscopy literature (2000-2019).
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 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.
- Comparative outcomes following laparotomy-assisted endoscopic removal or gastrotomy for treatment of linear foreign bodies in dogs and cats.Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2025Article
- Palliative endoscopic debulking treatment of canine nasal carcinoma - 35 cases (2016 to 2019): A retrospective multicentric study.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2025Article
- A 20-year scoping review of the veterinary interventional radiology and interventional endoscopy literature (2000-2019).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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterventional radiology (IR) and interventional endoscopy (IE) have broad potential for minimally invasive therapy in veterinary patients, but the scope of original peer-reviewed veterinary IR/IE research publications has not been described.
objectivesCatalogue published applications and indications for noncardiac therapeutic IR/IE in animals and describe type and quality of veterinary IR/IE research over 20 years.
methodsHighly-cited veterinary journals were searched to identify articles published 2000 to 2019 involving therapeutic IR/IE applications for clinical veterinary patients. Articles were assigned a level of evidence (LOE) according to published standards. Authorship, animal data, study design, and interventions were described. Change in publication rate, study size, and LOE of IR/IE articles over time was analyzed.
resultsOne hundred fifty-nine of 15 512 (1%) articles were eligible, including 2972 animals. All studies were low LOE and 43% were case reports with ≤5 animals. Number of IR/IE articles per year (P < .001), proportion of journals' articles pertaining to IR/IE (P = .02), and study size (P = .04) all increased over time, but LOE (P = .07) did not. Common target body systems were urinary (40%), digestive (23%) respiratory (20%), and vascular (13%). Common indications were nonvascular luminal obstructions (47%), object retrieval (14%), and congenital anomalies (13%). Most procedures involved indwelling medical devices or embolic agents, whereas tissue resection and other procedures were less common. Procedures utilized fluoroscopy (43%), endoscopy (33%), ultrasound (8%), digital radiography (1%), or fluoroscopy in combination with other modalities (16%).
conclusionsTreatments involving IR/IE have wide applicability in veterinary medicine but large, rigorous, and comparative studies describing these procedures are lacking.
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.