Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37697392›Full record

ArticleActa veterinaria Scandinavica2023

Treatment and survival of Norwegian cattle after uterine prolapse.

Adam Dunstan Martin, Per Kristian Groseth, Maien Munthe-Kaas, Ane Nødtvedt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta veterinaria Scandinavica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Puerperium in the Modern Dairy Cow: A Review.Reproduction in domestic animals = Zuchthygiene · 2026
    Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Adam Dunstan MartinDepartment of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postboks 5003 NMBU, Ås, 1432, Norway. adam.martin@nmbu.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1974-1816
Per Kristian GrosethDepartment of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postboks 5003 NMBU, Ås, 1432, Norway.
Maien Munthe-KaasDepartment of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postboks 5003 NMBU, Ås, 1432, Norway.
Ane NødtvedtDepartment of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postboks 5003 NMBU, Ås, 1432, Norway.
Norwegian University of Life Sciences · NOBjerknes Centre for Climate Research · NO

Funding

Norges Miljø- og Biovitenskapelige Universitet Norges Miljø- og Biovitenskapelige Universitet
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBovine uterine prolapse is a sporadic but life-threatening postpartum condition. The aims of this study were; (i) to determine which clinical findings determined the likelihood of treatment vs. culling, (ii) to identify the treatment methods currently employed by Norwegian veterinary surgeons and evaluate their effect on survival, (iii) to determine if clinical findings at the time of treatment could be used to determine prognosis. Practicing veterinary surgeons in Norway were contacted and asked to fill out a questionnaire on cases of bovine uterine prolapse they attended between February and October 2012. The questionnaires gathered data on signalment, clinical presentation, treatment, and outcome. These data were supplemented with culling data from the Norwegian Dairy and Beef Herd Recording Systems. The chi-squared test and logistic regression modelling was performed to identify likelihood of treatment and cox proportional hazard modelling was performed to identify the hazard of death after treatment.

resultsData from 126 cases of bovine uterine prolapse were collected (78 beef and 48 dairy cows). Twenty-six cows (21%) were emergency slaughtered, or underwent euthanasia, without treatment. Of the remaining 100 cases amputation of the uterus was performed once and repositioning was performed in 99 cases. Survival data were missing from 2 of the cases that had undergone treatment leaving a study sample of 97 cases (64 beef and 33 dairy cows). Multivariable logistic regression analysis of the explanatory variables showed that beef cows were more likely to be treated than dairy cows (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81, P = 0.017) and that cows with a significantly oedematous or traumatised uterus were less likely to be treated (OR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.67, P = 0.006). Treatment methods amongst Norwegian practitioners were broadly similar. In a multivariable model cows general clinical state at time of treatment was positively correlated with survival (HR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73, P = 0.008) and a history of a vaginal prolapse prepartum increased the hazard of death (HR = 2.31, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.95, P = 0.031) in the first 30 days after treatment of a uterine prolapse. In the first 180 days after treatment only veterinary assessment of a cows' general clinical state was correlated with hazard of death (HR = 0.432, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.91, P = 0.046).

conclusionsThis study shows that the production system and extent of uterine damage affect the likelihood of treatment, and that practitioners use similar treatment methods. A cows' general clinical state at time of treatment was positively correlated with survival, and a history of a vaginal prolapse prepartum increased the hazard of death in the first 30 days after treatment of a uterine prolapse.

Indexed as

Cattle DiseasesUterine ProlapseAnimalsCattleDietary SupplementsFemaleNorwayPelvisUterusBovineCowHazardObstetricsPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID37697392
PMCPMC10496322
OpenAlexW4386602514

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.