ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Use of erythromycin and metoclopramide in hospitalized dogs: a multicenter historical cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Prokinetics are used to treat gastrointestinal (GI) dysmotility in critically ill dogs but there have been no published studies characterizing their use. The objective of this multi-institutional retrospective cohort study was to describe the use of the prokinetics erythromycin and metoclopramide in dogs hospitalized in two institutions. We hypothesized that there would be change over time and differences between institutions in the use of erythromycin and metoclopramide. Methods: Dogs for inclusion were identified by fee code searches for injectable erythromycin and metoclopramide in the electronic medical record systems of The Animal Hospital at Murdoch University and Western Australian Veterinary Emergency and Specialty Hospital for the years 2018 and 2023. 75 cases from each hospital in each year were selected for inclusion from the search results using a formal randomization procedure to yield a total case number of 300. Data collected for each dog included signalment, diagnosis, reason(s) for starting prokinetics, the injectable prokinetic(s) used, frequency, and doses. Chi square or Fisher's exact tests were used as appropriate to compare the proportions of dogs receiving metoclopramide alone, erythromycin alone, or both prokinetics in 2018 and 2023, the proportions of dogs receiving metoclopramide or erythromycin as sole prokinetics between the two institutions, and the proportions of dogs receiving a single prokinetic versus dual prokinetics between the two institutions. Results: Primary GI diseases accounted for the majority of the diagnoses. The most common reasons for starting a prokinetic were vomiting, an imaging diagnosis of ileus, prophylaxis following abdominal surgery, and regurgitation. Metoclopramide was administered as a sole prokinetic in the majority of dogs, fewer cases received erythromycin alone, or both prokinetics. Use of metoclopramide alone decreased from 2018 to 2023, with more dogs receiving erythromycin alone or both prokinetics in 2023. There were also significant differences in prokinetic use between institutions. Discussion: Prospective studies to investigate the effectiveness and safety of metoclopramide and erythromycin as prokinetics in dogs are warranted.
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.