ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
Traumatic and iatrogenic sciatic nerve injury in 38 dogs and 10 cats: Clinical and electrodiagnostic findings.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selection of sciatic nerve injury models: implications for pathogenesis and treatment.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Traumatic and iatrogenic sciatic nerve injury in 38 dogs and 10 cats: Clinical and electrodiagnostic findings.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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReports describing sciatic nerve injuries (SNI) and their outcome are scarce in veterinary medicine. HYPOTHESIS: Describe the causes of traumatic and iatrogenic SNI and evaluate which clinical and electrodiagnostic findings predict outcome. ANIMALS: Thirty-eight dogs and 10 cats with confirmed SNI referred for neurologic and electrodiagnostic evaluation.
methodsClinical and electrodiagnostic examination results, including electromyography (EMG), motor nerve conduction studies, muscle-evoked potential (MEP), F-waves, sensory nerve conduction studies, and cord dorsum potential (CDP), were retrospectively evaluated. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed based on owner interviews.
resultsSurgery (42%) and trauma (33%) were the most common causes of SNI; in dogs, 24% were caused by bites from wild boars. Ability to flex and extend the tarsus was significantly associated with positive outcome in dogs. Mean time from onset of clinical signs until electrodiagnostic evaluation was 67 ± 65 (range, 7-300) days and 65 ± 108 (range, 7-365) days for dogs and cats, respectively. A cut-off amplitude of 1.45 mV for compound motor action potentials (CMAP) was predictive of positive outcome in dogs (P = .01), with sensitivity of 58% and specificity of 100%. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Clinical motor function predicts recovery better than sensory function. Electrodiagnostic findings also may play a role in predicting the outcome of SNI. Application of the proposed CMAP cut-off amplitude may assist clinicians in shortening the time to reassessment or for earlier suggestion of salvage procedures. Owners perceived a good quality of life (QoL), even in cases of hindlimb amputation.
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.