Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40084240›Full record

ArticleThe Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne2025

Evaluation of publication bias in the assessment of probiotic treatment for gastrointestinal disease in dogs and cats.

J Scott Weese

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

J Scott WeeseDepartment of Pathobiology and Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses underpin the evidence-to-decision framework used for guideline development. Publication bias is important to understand when assessing the strength of evidence. Objective: To evaluate the peer-reviewed-journal publication rate of abstracts from 2 veterinary internal medicine conferences regarding probiotic treatment for gastrointestinal disease in dogs and cats. Animals and procedure: Abstracts from the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Forum (2000 to 2023) and European College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Congress (2002 to 2023) that reported clinical gastrointestinal disease outcomes of probiotic treatment for dogs, cats, or both were included. PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched to identify corresponding peer-reviewed publications. Results: Twelve abstracts were identified; 6 (50%) were subsequently published as peer-reviewed publications. Five of 6 (83%) that were published reported positive clinical outcomes, whereas 4/6 (67%) that were not published reported no beneficial clinical outcomes. Overall, 5/7 (71%) abstracts that reported a clinical effect were published, compared to 1/5 (20%) that did not. Conclusion: Publication bias complicates assessment of the literature and guideline development. Clinical relevance: The potential impact of publication bias should be considered when evaluating the literature and developing guidelines.

Indexed as

Cat DiseasesDog DiseasesGastrointestinal DiseasesProbioticsPublication BiasAnimalsCatsDogs

Identifiers

PMID40084240
PMCPMC11897921

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.