ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Dog Owners' Perceptions of the Convenience and Value of Chewable Oclacitinib: Quantitative Survey Data from an International Survey.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do you know how to minimize overdoses of chewable oclacitinib?The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2026Article
- Treatment and control of Haemaphysalis longicornis infestations on dogs using a formulation of sarolaner, moxidectin and pyrantel (Simparica Trio®).Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Using social media listening to identify the real-world challenges faced by dog owners globally when administering oral medications.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Oclacitinib is an oral therapy indicated for pruritus associated with allergic or atopic dermatitis in dogs. This study sought to assess pet owners' perceptions of the relative convenience and value of the conventional film-coated formulation and the chewable formulation. A quantitative discrete-choice experimental methodology was applied, comparing (conventional, film-coated) oclacitinib versus chewable oclacitinib using unbranded treatment profiles. Initially, a qualitative interview phase with pet owners and veterinarians was conducted to develop detailed treatment profiles. Subsequently, pet owners participated in a quantitative survey. Overall, 1590 pet owners provided survey responses. Most respondents (62%) reported having experienced challenges administering tablet-based therapies to their dog(s). Half of all respondents (52%) had experience administering flavoured or chewable tablets to their dog. Comparing oclacitinib and chewable oclacitinib (with or without associated costs), the majority of the respondents preferred the chewable formulation in all regions across short-term and long-term scenarios (≥58%; all
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.