Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38419950›Full record

ArticleJFMS open reports

Prevalence of

Roubina Honarchian, Tracy Yen, Eva Ganz, Gie Kang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JFMS open reports. 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.

Roubina HonarchianMetropolitan Animal Specialty Hospital, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2371-8367
Tracy YenMetropolitan Animal Specialty Hospital, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Eva GanzMetropolitan Animal Specialty Hospital, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Gie KangMetropolitan Animal Specialty Hospital, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of Methods: Results: Of the 13 (5.8%) cats with IgM titers, 10 were positive at the minimal cut-off titer (1:64), one cat was clinically ill and none were currently positive for IgG antibodies, suggesting false-positive results for nine cats, giving an adjusted IgM prevalence rate of 1.8% (95% CI 0.7-4.5). A total of five (2.2%) cats were positive for IgG antibodies and no cat was positive for both antibodies. Conclusions and relevance: Most studies of

Indexed as

IgGIgMLos AngelesprevalenceT gondiiToxoplasma gondii

Identifiers

PMID38419950
PMCPMC10901050

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.