ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
An international survey on canine urinary incontinence: case frequency, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Urinary incontinence (UI) consists of involuntary leakage of urine during the storage phase of urination. Methods: An anonymous survey was given to Spanish and Italian veterinarians about canine UI treated cases, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and professional interest. Results and discussion: Most veterinarians treated ≤3 cases/quarter, resulting in the percentage of incontinence males being lower than that of females (1-4% vs 0-24%). The percentage of spayed incontinent females was lower in Spain (0-24%) than in Italy (75-100%). Most diagnoses were based on a diagnostic algorithm (Spain: 88.7%; Italy: 65.3%); patient report and history, blood work, urinalysis and abdominal ultrasound. Urethral/bladder pressure measurement was unusual (Spain: 0.2%; Italy: 2.4%). In Spain, radiology with contrast medium and CT urography (26.3% and 34.4%, respectively) were more frequent than in Italy (11.6% and 22.7%, respectively). When suspecting urethral sphincter mechanism incompetence pharmacological trial (Spain: 93.2%; Italy: 78.9%). The first-choice medical treatment was Phenylpropanolamine, followed by Ephedrine and Deslorelin. When pharmacotherapy failed, the most frequent option was drug change, followed by increased drug dosage/frequency of administration, surgical therapy and colposuspension. A review was completed after the first week of treatment followed by periodic reviews. Most of the respondents participated in continuing education only if UI occurred in their everyday practice (Spain: 63.0%; Italy: 55.4%) and about 30% responders did it regardless of the number of UI cases treated (Spain: 30.5%; Italy: 37.4%). Conclusion: Some recommendations in clinical practice were made. UI can be underestimated by owners; therefore, a complete history should be obtained by veterinarians. Veterinarians should carefully evaluate if spaying is advisable considering it could increase UI risk. A step-by-step approach is recommended and a specific diagnostic-therapeutic algorithm for UI in dogs is provided. Conservative approaches (regular exercise, weight loss in overweight dogs and observing an "incontinence diary" to identify abnormal patterns of urination) are advisable.
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.