Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40364605›Full record

ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2025

Necropsy Technique and Histological Characterisation of Organs From Neonatal Puppies: What Do We Know?

Victória Ghedin, Jéssica Cardia de Melo, Fernanda Barthelson Carvalho de Moura, Keylla Helena Nobre Pacífico Pereira, Carlos Mario Gonzalez Zambrano, Juliana Jurado Jiménez, Gabriela Abreu Botelho, Luíz Guilherme Decore Benevenuto, Reiner Silveira de Moraes, Fernando Carmona Dinau and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary medicine and 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

23 authors.

Victória GhedinSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Clinics, Botucatu, Brazil.
Jéssica Cardia de MeloSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Clinics, Botucatu, Brazil.
Fernanda Barthelson Carvalho de MouraSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Clinics, Botucatu, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8153-2038
Keylla Helena Nobre Pacífico PereiraSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Clinics, Botucatu, Brazil.
Carlos Mario Gonzalez ZambranoSão Paulo State University (UNESP), Faculty of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Botucatu, Brazil.
Juliana Jurado JiménezSão Paulo State University (UNESP), Faculty of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Botucatu, Brazil.
Gabriela Abreu BotelhoSão Paulo State University (UNESP), Faculty of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Botucatu, Brazil.
Luíz Guilherme Decore BenevenutoSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Surgery and Reproduction, Botucatu, Brazil.
Reiner Silveira de MoraesSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Clinics, Botucatu, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1468-2968
Fernando Carmona DinauSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Clinics, Botucatu, Brazil.
Pedro Pol XimenesSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Clinics, Botucatu, Brazil.
Ana Júlia Motta da CostaSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Clinics, Botucatu, Brazil.
Natália Freitas de SouzaSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Clinics, Botucatu, Brazil.
Maria Clara Boni RaffiSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Clinics, Botucatu, Brazil.
Tatiana Pessoa OnumaSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Clinics, Botucatu, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0005-8506-3178
Natália Camargo FaraldoSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Surgery and Reproduction, Botucatu, Brazil.
Maria Lucia Gomes LourençoSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Clinics, Botucatu, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8337-4168
Sérgio Luis FelisbinoSão Paulo State University (UNESP), Institute of Biosciences, Morphology Department, Botucatu, Brazil.
Tatiane Terumi Negrão WatanabeAntech Diagnostics, Mars Petcare Science & Diagnostics, Fountain Valley, California, USA.
Monica Barthelson Carvalho de MouraSão Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas Unit, Campinas, Brazil.
Luis Mauricio Montoya-FlórezUniversidad Nacional de Colombia (UNAL), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Health, Bogotá, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-5198-7998
Francisco Pedraza-OrdoñezLaboratorio de Patología Veterinaria, Universidad de Caldas, Manizales, Colombia.
Noeme Sousa RochaSão Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Clinics, Botucatu, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neonatal mortality in dogs is high, ranging from approximately 5% to 35%, yet investigations into its causes and risk factors remain scarce. Postmortem examination is a crucial tool for identifying the underlying causes of neonatal death and improving disease diagnosis. However, the anatomical, physiological and histological differences between neonates and adults present unique challenges for necropsy procedures. Establishing a standardised neonatal necropsy protocol is essential for accurately determining the causes of death and associated diseases. This pilot study aimed to standardise a necropsy technique for canine neonates. During the examination, the spleen, heart, lungs, tongue, stomach, intestines, liver, pancreas, kidneys, bladder, brain and bones were collected from nine neonatal canines. The method involved monoblock organ removal, followed by separation on the basis of the standard organisation used in adult necropsies. Histological staining and analysis revealed structural differences between neonatal and adult tissues. Neonatal hepatocytes presented a more basophilic cytoplasm, suggesting high metabolic activity, whereas gastric glands and parietal cells were less developed, indicating ongoing maturation. Additionally, the pancreas, lungs, kidneys and spleen displayed morphological characteristics consistent with those of the early development stages. Understanding these particularities may enhance veterinary diagnostic and clinical approaches, contribute to the development of preventive measures and ultimately reduce neonatal mortality in dogs. The standardisation of necropsy protocols facilitates the recognition of disease patterns, improves pathological documentation and supports further research on neonatal canine mortality.

Indexed as

AutopsyAnimalsAnimals, NewbornDogsFemaleMalePilot Projectscanine neonatologyhistologyhistopathologynewborn dogpostmortem examination

Identifiers

PMID40364605
PMCPMC12075929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.