ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
Retrospective Evaluation of Risk Factors and Outcome in Dogs With and Without Fluid Overload During Hospitalization.
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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterization and outcomes of cats with cardiomyopathy undergoing subcutaneous ureteral bypass device placement.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Perioperative management of septic peritonitis in small animals: A review.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2026Review
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
backgroundRisk factors for the development of fluid overload (FO) and its potential negative effects have not been investigated in dogs. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesEvaluate risk factors and outcomes in hospitalized dogs that received fluids IV and developed clinical signs of FO compared to those that did not. ANIMALS: One hundred thirty-six dogs that developed FO and 109 dogs without FO.
methodsRetrospective observational study of hospitalized dogs. Variables were compared between dogs that developed clinical signs of FO (FO group) and dogs without FO (control group).
resultsCompared to the control group, dogs in the FO group were significantly more likely to have cardiovascular disease (odds ratio [OR], 18.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-60), protein-losing nephropathy (OR, 15.3; 95% CI, 2.0-116.8), chronic kidney disease (OR, 10; 95% CI, 3.0-33.8), and acute kidney injury (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.5-10.6). The total fluid volume administered IV was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.16). Only 6.0% of dogs with clinical signs of FO gained > 10% weight from non-dehydrated baseline and thus met the FO definition used in human medicine. Compared with the control group, dogs with FO had a significantly longer median duration of hospitalization (p < 0.001) and were less likely to survive to discharge (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: FO was more common with certain underlying diseases but not associated with total fluid volume administered IV. The definition for FO in human medicine using weight gain requires further evaluation in dogs. FO was associated with worse outcomes and longer hospitalization time.
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.