Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37776099›Full record

ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine

Effect of esomeprazole with and without a probiotic on fecal dysbiosis, intestinal inflammation, and fecal short-chain fatty acid concentrations in healthy dogs.

Rae McAtee, Sarah M Schmid, M Katherine Tolbert, Scott Hetzel, Jan S Suchodolski, Jessica C Pritchard

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rae McAteeDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Sarah M SchmidDepartment of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Tennessee Knoxville College of Veterinary Medicine, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9383-3591
M Katherine TolbertGastrointestinal Laboratory, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8725-9530
Scott HetzelDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Jan S SuchodolskiGastrointestinal Laboratory, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2176-6932
Jessica C PritchardDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1781-2158
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USTexas College · USKnoxville College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProton pump inhibitors can cause diarrhea and a transient increase in fecal dysbiosis index in dogs. It is unknown if concurrent probiotic administration mitigates these effects. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: To assess the fecal Canine Microbial Dysbiosis Index (CMDI), fecal short chain fatty acid (SCFA), and fecal calprotectin concentrations in dogs administered esomeprazole with and without a probiotic. ANIMALS: Eleven healthy dogs.

methodsProspective, within-subjects before and after study. All dogs received 7-day courses of esomeprazole (1 mg/kg PO q 24h) alone followed by esomeprazole with a probiotic (15 billion CFU/kg), separated by a 4-week washout period. Data were compared between phases using mixed effects ANOVA or generalized estimating equations with post-hoc Holm adjustment for 2-way comparisons.

resultsCompared to baseline (mean CMDI -2.66, SD 3.04), fecal CMDI was not different with esomeprazole administration alone (mean CMDI -1.48, SD 3.32, P = .08), but there was a significant increase (Diff 3.05, 95% CI [1.37, 4.74], P < .001, Effect size 2.02) when esomeprazole and a probiotic were administered concurrently (mean CMDI 0.39, SD 2.83). CMDI was significantly higher when esomeprazole was administered with a probiotic than alone (Diff 1.87, 95% CI [0.19, 1.87], P = .02, Effect size 1.24). Fecal calprotectin and SCFA concentrations did not differ between phases. The occurrence of vomiting and diarrhea was not different from baseline when esomeprazole was administered alone (36%/27%) or with a probiotic (46%/9%). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: In healthy dogs, concurrent administration of a probiotic is unlikely to lessen adverse effects associated with esomeprazole administration.

Indexed as

Dog DiseasesProbioticsAnimalsDiarrheaDogsDysbiosisEsomeprazoleFatty Acids, VolatileHumansInflammationLeukocyte L1 Antigen ComplexProspective StudiesEsomeprazoleFatty Acids, VolatileLeukocyte L1 Antigen Complexcaninedysbiosisnutritionprobioticsproton pump inhibitor

Identifiers

PMID37776099
PMCPMC10658524
OpenAlexW4387209932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.