Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37401620›Full record

ArticleThe veterinary quarterly2023

Assessment of misdiagnosis in small animal intensive care patients using the Modified Goldman criteria.

Sanne Hugen, Nynke Ankringa, Joris Henricus Robben, Chiara Valtolina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The veterinary quarterly, 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
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.

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

4 authors.

Sanne HugenDepartment of Clinical Sciences of Companion Animals, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Nynke AnkringaDepartment of Biomolecular Health Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Joris Henricus RobbenDepartment of Clinical Sciences of Companion Animals, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Chiara ValtolinaDepartment of Clinical Sciences of Companion Animals, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The postmortem examination can be used as a means of quality control for clinical diagnoses. A retrospective study on 300 dogs and cats that had been admitted to a small animal intensive care unit was performed comparing the clinical and postmortem findings, using the Modified Goldman criteria. All patient files were reevaluated for clinical diagnoses and all postmortem material was reevaluated for pathological diagnoses. After this, the Modified Goldman criteria were applied to score the discrepancies between them, and factors associated with the occurrence of an undiagnosed major unexpected finding were analyzed. The postmortem examination revealed additional findings in 65% of the cases. Major discrepancies, defined as those affecting treatment and possibly outcome of the patient, were present in 21.3% of the cases. The most frequently missed diagnoses detected at necropsy were pneumonia of various etiologies, meningitis/meningoencephalitis, myocarditis and generalized vasculitis. A shorter ICU stay was associated with increased odds of a major discrepancy. Conditions affecting the urinary or gastrointestinal system were negatively associated with major discrepancy.

Indexed as

Cat DiseasesDog DiseasesAnimalsCatsCause of DeathCritical CareDiagnostic ErrorsDogsRetrospective StudiesdiscrepancyGoldman criteriaICUmisdiagnosesnecropsyPostmortem

Identifiers

PMID37401620
PMCPMC10506425

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.