ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
Nasal Stimulation Response in Neurologically Normal Dogs and Cats.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe range of normal responses to nasal stimulation (NSR) observed in neurologically intact dogs and cats has not been reported. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesReport the responses range while performing NSR in neurologically normal dogs and cats. ANIMALS: Twenty dogs and twenty cats, all neurologically normal.
methodsProspective descriptive study. Nasal stimulation response testing was performed four times in each animal. Responses to NSR were recorded and described. Neuroanatomical cadaveric evaluation was then performed to attempt to correlate the responses with anatomy.
resultsWithdrawal of the head was the most common response observed in both dogs and cats; it was present in all animals and during 150/160 stimulations. Other observed responses included lip lick response (39/40 animals and in 121/160 stimulations) and startle response (17/40 animals and in 34/160 stimulations). The latter was present in cats significantly (p = 0.026) more often (8/80 of stimulations in dogs and in 26/80 of stimulations in cats). The location of the examination (home vs veterinary hospital), stress, or covering the eyes did not significantly affect the responses. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE RELEVANCE: Withdrawal of the head is a consistent response, but in its absence, looking for lip lick or a startle response could support the normal function of the pathway.
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.