Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38835892›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024

Comparing standard screening questionnaires of canine behavior for assessment of cognitive dysfunction.

Julia Haake, Sebastian Meller, Nina Meyerhoff, Friederike Twele, Marios Charalambous, Steven R Talbot, Holger A Volk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. GWAS for behavioral traits in golden retrievers identifies genes implicated in human temperament, mental health, and cognition.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

7 authors.

Julia Haake *Department of Small Animal Medicine & Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Sebastian Meller *Department of Small Animal Medicine & Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Nina MeyerhoffDepartment of Small Animal Medicine & Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Friederike TweleDepartment of Small Animal Medicine & Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Marios CharalambousDepartment of Small Animal Medicine & Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Steven R TalbotInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Laboratory, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Holger A VolkDepartment of Small Animal Medicine & Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Canine cognitive dysfunction (CCD) is a common, yet underdiagnosed neurodegenerative disease affecting older dogs. Treatment is most effective when started early, so identifying mild cognitive decline in the earlier stages of the disease is considered important. Hypothesis/objective: To compare the results of three different standard screening questionnaires [Canine Dementia Scale (CADES), Canine Cognitive Assessment Scale (CCAS), and Canine Cognitive Dysfunction Rating Scale (CCDR)] for CCD diagnosis. Trainability, pain sensitivity, and fear were additionally assessed with the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ) in order to evaluate associations between the three dementia scales and behavior. Methods: An online survey containing all the mentioned questionnaires was designed for and distributed among owners of elderly dogs. Results: Data from 597 dogs were analyzed. Overall, the scores of the three CCD questionnaires correlated well with each other, especially those of the CADES and CCAS. The CADES was more sensitive in identifying dogs with already mild to moderate cognitive impairment, while the others classified them as still undergoing normal aging. CCD scores increased for all questionnaires with age with spatial orientation being a key feature in CCD development. Trainability assessed with the C-BARQ decreased significantly with severity of CCD signs, while pain sensitivity increased. Fear and anxiety was pronounced in animals with mild but not with severe CCD. These associations based on the C-BARQ were more clearly observable in relation to CADES and CCDR than CCAS. Conclusion/clinical relevance: The choice of screening questionnaire impacts the evaluation of cognitive status and severity of CCD. Thresholds for severity classification differ significantly and may have an impact on reliable assessment. Further longitudinal studies are required to determine which of the questionnaires investigated in this study is best suited for early detection of CCD.

Indexed as

assessment toolscanine dementiacognitiongeriatricsquestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID38835892
PMCPMC11149356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.