ArticleVeterinary surgery : VS2025
Diagnostic value of a point of care bacterial fluorescence imaging device for detecting wound infections in dogs and cats.
Article in Veterinary surgery : VS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic value of a point of care bacterial fluorescence imaging device for detecting wound infections in dogs and cats.Veterinary surgery : VS · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine if a hand-held point of care imaging device would improve the detection of bacteria on the surface of wounds in dogs and cats in postoperative and traumatic wounds. STUDY
designClinical prospective study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Three cats and 15 dogs.
methodsWounds were swabbed without and with the point of care wound imaging device (WID). Quantitative bacterial culture (QBC), polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and microbiome analysis were performed to assess for any significant difference in the findings of image-guided and non-guided sampling methods.
resultsA total of four feline and 17 canine wounds were evaluated. Bacterial fluorescence was detected in all wounds using the point of care WID. Bacterial infections of wounds in dogs and cats was detected by the fluorescent imaging device. No significant difference was identified between the results of QBC and PCR for image-guided and non-guided wound swabs (p > .05).
conclusionThe WID was able to detect bacteria on the surface of wounds in dogs and cats, accurately confirming the presence of a clinically relevant wound infection at the time of wound evaluation in all wounds but there was no significant difference in the bacterial yield with guided and non-guided swabs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The WID device was able to confirm the presence of a clinically relevant wound infection in real-time, enabling the clinician to initiate appropriate systemic and/or topical antibacterial treatment immediately. This study provides proof of concept of the point of care WID in dogs and cats upon which further studies can be based.
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.