ArticleAustralian veterinary journal2025
Inducing emesis in Australian dogs and cats: agents, adverse effects and antiemetic administration.
Article in Australian veterinary journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of fresh and processedFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Evaluation of different doses of medetomidine for the induction of emesis in cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Inducing emesis in Australian dogs and cats: agents, adverse effects and antiemetic administration.Australian veterinary journal · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the agents used by Australian veterinarians in inducing emesis in dogs and cats, adverse effects and antiemetic administration.
methodsAn anonymous online mixed-methods survey incorporating closed and open-ended questions was distributed to Australian veterinarians via e-newsletters and social media between April and June 2024.
resultsFrom 317 valid responses, 316 respondents induced emesis in a dog (99.7%) and 128 (40.4%) induced emesis in a cat in the previous 12 months. The most common protocols were subcutaneous injection of apomorphine (n = 310/316, 98.1%) for dogs and intramuscular injection of dexmedetomidine or medetomidine (n = 79/128, 61.7%) for cats. Respondents reported significantly reduced success (n = 74/128, 57.8%) inducing emesis in cats compared with dogs (n = 312/316, 98.7%) (P ≤ 0.001). Sedation was the most reported adverse effect for both species. The subconjunctival route of apomorphine was found to significantly increase the risk of adverse effects in dogs, compared with the subcutaneous route (P = 0.03). Antiemetics were more frequently administered to dogs than cats. Univariable logistical regression analysis revealed that veterinarians with fewer than 5 years' experience were significantly more likely to use an antiemetic drug when inducing vomiting in dogs (P = 0.05) compared with veterinarians with 31 or more years of experience.
conclusionThese findings enable clinicians to benchmark practices against those of their peers, characterise adverse effects associated with emesis induction and refine their technique to improve patient welfare. A more reliable means of inducing emesis in cats is needed.
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.