ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
A randomized placebo-controlled double-blinded study comparing oral and subcutaneous administration of mistletoe extract for the treatment of equine sarcoid disease.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cancer Across Domestic Animals: A Descriptive Review from the Veterinarian's Perspective.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Outcomes following autologous tumor tissue implantation with or without concurrent antineoplastic therapies in the treatment of sarcoids in 50 equids.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- A randomized placebo-controlled double-blinded study comparing oral and subcutaneous administration of mistletoe extract for the treatment of equine sarcoid disease.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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEquine sarcoids (ES) are the most common cutaneous tumors in equids. Systemic treatment options are sparse. Subcutaneous (SC) injections of Viscum album extract (VAE) demonstrate efficacy as a systemic treatment directed against ES. OBJECTIVES/
aimTo critically assess the therapeutic efficacy of orally administered VAE. ANIMALS: Forty-five ES-affected, privately owned, 3-12 year-old horses.
methodsA 3-armed randomized placebo-controlled, double-blinded study was conducted in a double-dummy design. Horses were subjected to oral administration and SC injections of either VAE or placebo (VAE oral/placebo SC, VAE SC/placebo oral, placebo oral/placebo SC) over a 7-month treatment period. Primary endpoint was the change of baseline of a composite index of ES number and ES area after 14 months. Second endpoint was the clinical response.
resultsNo statistically significant difference in the composite endpoint between the 3 study arms was found. The primary endpoint showed 4 (27%) horses in the VAE oral group with complete ES regression, 3 (21%) in the VAE SC injection group, and 2 (13%) in the placebo group. The clinical response revealed complete or partial regression in 6 horses of the oral VAE group (40%), 4 of the SC injection group (29%), and 4 of the placebo group (25%). Direct comparison of oral VAE and placebo showed an odds ratio, stratified for prognosis of 2.16 (95%-CI: 0.45-10.42) and a P-value of 0.336. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Oral administration of VAE is well tolerated. No statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of systemic VAE versus placebo against ES was found.
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.