Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39744464›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire2025

Preliminary report: Protective effects of probiotics on cefovecin-induced gut dysbiosis in dogs.

Dae-Woong Han, Jung-Hun Kang, Seung-Hyun Mun, Sung-Jae Kim, Yo-Han Kim, Cheol-Yong Hwang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

6 authors.

Dae-Woong Han *Laboratory of Veterinary Dermatology (Han, Hwang) and Research Institute for Veterinary Science (Han, Mun, Hwang), College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; ORIGIN Veterinary Dermatology Clinic, Busan, Republic of Korea (Kang); Department of Companion Animal Health Care, College of Medical Health, Kyungbok University, Namyangju, Republic of Korea (Kim S-J); Department of Large Animal Internal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea (Kim Y-H).
Jung-Hun Kang *Laboratory of Veterinary Dermatology (Han, Hwang) and Research Institute for Veterinary Science (Han, Mun, Hwang), College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; ORIGIN Veterinary Dermatology Clinic, Busan, Republic of Korea (Kang); Department of Companion Animal Health Care, College of Medical Health, Kyungbok University, Namyangju, Republic of Korea (Kim S-J); Department of Large Animal Internal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea (Kim Y-H).
Seung-Hyun MunLaboratory of Veterinary Dermatology (Han, Hwang) and Research Institute for Veterinary Science (Han, Mun, Hwang), College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; ORIGIN Veterinary Dermatology Clinic, Busan, Republic of Korea (Kang); Department of Companion Animal Health Care, College of Medical Health, Kyungbok University, Namyangju, Republic of Korea (Kim S-J); Department of Large Animal Internal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea (Kim Y-H).
Sung-Jae KimLaboratory of Veterinary Dermatology (Han, Hwang) and Research Institute for Veterinary Science (Han, Mun, Hwang), College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; ORIGIN Veterinary Dermatology Clinic, Busan, Republic of Korea (Kang); Department of Companion Animal Health Care, College of Medical Health, Kyungbok University, Namyangju, Republic of Korea (Kim S-J); Department of Large Animal Internal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea (Kim Y-H).
Yo-Han KimLaboratory of Veterinary Dermatology (Han, Hwang) and Research Institute for Veterinary Science (Han, Mun, Hwang), College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; ORIGIN Veterinary Dermatology Clinic, Busan, Republic of Korea (Kang); Department of Companion Animal Health Care, College of Medical Health, Kyungbok University, Namyangju, Republic of Korea (Kim S-J); Department of Large Animal Internal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea (Kim Y-H).
Cheol-Yong HwangLaboratory of Veterinary Dermatology (Han, Hwang) and Research Institute for Veterinary Science (Han, Mun, Hwang), College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; ORIGIN Veterinary Dermatology Clinic, Busan, Republic of Korea (Kang); Department of Companion Animal Health Care, College of Medical Health, Kyungbok University, Namyangju, Republic of Korea (Kim S-J); Department of Large Animal Internal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea (Kim Y-H).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether supplementation with probiotics over a 2-week period stabilizes the gut microbiota in dogs following prolonged cefovecin treatment. A significant number of clinical veterinarians prescribe oral probiotics to dogs in conjunction with systemic antibiotics with the intention of protecting against gut dysbiosis. The effects of antibiotics and probiotics in dogs have not been extensively studied, however, and the optimal treatment for gut dysbiosis remains uncertain. To investigate the impact of cefovecin and probiotics on the gut microbiota, 12 healthy companion dogs that underwent surgical castration were included in the study. The dogs were administered cefovecin immediately after surgery. Of the 12 dogs, 7 dogs were supplemented with oral probiotics for 2 wk after cefovecin treatment (probiotic group), whereas the other 5 dogs were not supplemented with probiotics (non-probiotic group). Fecal samples were collected from each dog before and 2 wk after cefovecin treatment and subjected to 16S rRNA gene sequencing using the Illumina platform. We noted that cefovecin induced changes in bacterial diversity of the gut microbiota, with the Shannon index values of the non-probiotic group decreasing significantly, whereas those of the probiotic group remained stable (

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCephalosporinsDog DiseasesDysbiosisGastrointestinal MicrobiomeProbioticsAnimalsDogsFecesMaleAnti-Bacterial AgentscefovecinCephalosporins

Identifiers

PMID39744464
PMCPMC11665732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.