Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40432548›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of small animal practice2025

Treatment outcomes in sinonasal aspergillosis in dogs in the United Kingdom: 436 cases (2011-2021).

C D Prior, H Swales, A Kortum, N Reed, M Sharman, D Kelly, A Kent, B Glanemann, K Clarke, C Lea and 35 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of small animal practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Primary and Secondary Sinonasal Aspergillosis in Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
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

45 authors.

C D PriorWillows Veterinary Centre and Referral Service, Part of Linnaeus Veterinary Limited, Solihull, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5254-3205
H SwalesBridge Referrals, Boldon, UK.
A KortumDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Cambridge Veterinary School, Cambridge, UK.
N ReedVeterinary Specialists Scotland, Livingston, UK.
M SharmanVetCt, Cambridge, UK.
D KellySouthern Counties Veterinary Specialists, Ringwood, UK.
A KentBlaise Veterinary Referral Hospital, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3680-5893
B GlanemannThe Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
K ClarkeDavies Veterinary Specialists, Hertfordshire, UK.
C LeaSouthern Counties Veterinary Specialists, Hampshire, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8484-6796
E RobertsBristol Vet Specialists, Bristol, UK.
N BommerVeterinary Specialists Scotland, Livingston, UK.
L RutherfordThe Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
A TamboriniIDEXX Laboratories, Wetherby, UK.
K MurphyRowe Veterinary Referrals, Bristol, UK.
D J BatchelorSchool of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Neston, UK.
S CallejaLumbry Park Veterinary Specialists, Hampshire, UK.
R BurrowNorthwest Veterinary Specialists, Soft Tissue Surgery, Cheshire, UK.
P M JamiesonVetsNow 24/7 Emergency & Specialty Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
C PiazzaScarsdale Vets Pride Veterinary Centre, Derby, UK.
M BestEastcott Veterinary Referrals, Swindon, UK.
I Calvo SaizSouthfields Veterinary Specialists, Laindon, UK.
I ElguetaVetsNow 24/7 Emergency & Specialty Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
S J FowlieSouthfields Veterinary Specialists, Laindon, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3888-728X
C ShalesWillows Veterinary Centre and Referral Service, Part of Linnaeus Veterinary Limited, Solihull, UK.
C Gil MoralesLangford Veterinary Services Ltd, Langford, UK.
E LopezCalder Vets, Yorkshire, UK.
S BorgonoviCalder Vets, Yorkshire, UK.
M KeaneUniversity of Liverpool School of Veterinary Science, Neston, UK.
J KennilsCalder Vets, Yorkshire, UK.
E IzaguirreRowe Veterinary Referrals, Bristol, UK.
M Hernandez-PerelloWear Referrals, Bradbury, UK.
N LauDavies Veterinary Specialists, Hertfordshire, UK.
A PaulHamilton's Veterinary Specialists, Wycombe, UK.
A RidyardUniversity of Glasgow Small Animal Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
E SheltonThe Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
A FargesUniversity of Glasgow Small Animal Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
G SpecchiaScarsdale Vets Pride Veterinary Centre, Derby, UK.
L EspadaUniversity of Glasgow Small Animal Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
S SpenceLondon Veterinary Specialists, London, UK.
A HrovatPride Veterinary Hospital, Derbyshire, UK.
N Van den SteenCave Veterinary Specialists, Wellington, New Zealand.
S TappinDick White Referrals, Cambridge, UK.
T H SparksWaltham Petcare Science Institute, Leicestershire, UK.
F AllertonWillows Veterinary Centre and Referral Service, Part of Linnaeus Veterinary Limited, Solihull, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA variety of treatment options for sinonasal aspergillosis have been described, encompassing non-invasive and invasive approaches. To describe the clinical outcomes in dogs treated for sinonasal aspergillosis in the United Kingdom. MATERIALS AND

methodsA multi-centre retrospective survey was performed involving 23 referral centres in the United Kingdom from January 2011 to December 2021. Cases were reviewed for first treatment success rates, the number of treatments required and overall clinical remission rates. Different treatment approaches were compared, including rhinoscopic debridement (RD), trephination (TR) and sinusotomy/rhinotomy (SR).

resultsIn a cohort of 436 dogs with sinonasal aspergillosis, the most common first treatment modalities were RD (38%) and TR (32%), with SR used in 7% and oral antifungal monotherapy in 3%. The remaining 20% used a mixture of treatments. First treatment remission rate was 55% with SR, 38% with RD, 29% with TR and 31% with the mixed treatment. Overall remission rate was 67% with SR, 81% with RD and 69% with TR and 59% where different treatments were combined. Oral antifungal monotherapy had no successful outcomes at any time point. Complete debridement significantly improved remission rates of first treatments (54% vs. 21%, P = 0.003). Adverse effects were reported in 24% of cases, most commonly in SR and TR groups. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Rhinoscopic debridement and trephination remain the predominant treatment options for SNA in UK referral practices, with similar overall clinical remission rates. The degree of debridement significantly influences treatment outcomes, with rhinoscopic debridement in combination with topical antifungals showing the highest success rates.

Indexed as

AspergillosisDog DiseasesNose DiseasesAnimalsAntifungal AgentsDebridementDogsFemaleMaleRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomAntifungal Agents

Identifiers

PMID40432548
PMCPMC12489523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.