ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Diagnosis of Septic Body Cavity Effusion in Dogs and Cats: Cytology vs. Bacterial Culture.
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 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.
- Successful Management of Septic Splenitis in an Abyssinian Cat.Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Article
- Diagnosis and surgical management of septic peritonitis in small animals: A review.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2026Review
- Fungal Empyema Thoracis Associated withJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Pioneering Advances in Veterinary Medicine: From Diagnosis to Treatment.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The elective test for the determination of the effusions etiopathogenesis is represented by physico-chemical analysis and cytology. Nevertheless, the bacterial culture and antibiotic sensitivity tests are crucial for setting therapy and for the outcome. This study compared cytology with microbiology in the etiologic diagnosis of exudative body cavity effusions in dogs and cats collected from October 2018 to October 2022. All samples underwent aerobic and anaerobic culture and cytology examination. Bacterial identifications were confirmed using matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry, whereas cytological samples were blindly evaluated either in May Grunwald-Giemsa (MGG) or Gram-stained samples by two board-certified clinical pathologists. A moderate agreement (κ = 0.454) between cytology and bacterial culture was revealed. The sensitivity of the cytological evaluation in our study ranged from 38.5% to 67.9%, and the specificity ranged from 88.9% to 100%, depending on the type of the effusion, so cytology may not be representative of the etiopathogenesis, whereas bacterial culture can misidentify or fail to isolate the correct pathogen for difficult in vitro growing due to the presence of inhibitory substances or contamination. Cytology and bacterial culture results for exudative body cavity effusions in dogs and cats can be misleading if conducted separately, so these two tests should be performed together to increase diagnostic accuracy.
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.