ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025
Instruments to Assess Disease-Specific Quality of Life in Dogs: A Scoping Review.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. 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.
- Fluorescent Light Energy (FLE) as an Adjunctive Therapy in Canine Cutaneous Epitheliotropic Lymphoma (CTCL).Veterinary dermatology · 2026Article
- Assessment of the Awareness and Use of Quality of Life Tools in Small Animal Practices in Germany.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quality of life (QoL) assessment has increased in veterinary medicine in recent years, as has the number of attempts to measure it. This review aimed to provide an overview and assess the quality of existing instruments measuring disease-specific QoL in dogs. The PubMed and CAB Abstracts databases were searched in February 2023 using search terms associated with dogs, well-being, and QoL to identify relevant articles which were then evaluated for information on the development and validation processes. For further analysis, 41 publications were selected, of which instruments were available for 30 publications; of these, 24 contained information on item development, while 12 of the 41 instruments described some form of instrument evaluation. Among these 12 instruments, 2 exhibited appropriate test-retest reliability, 7 exhibited acceptable internal consistency, 9 checked at least one face or content validity, and 8 tested at least one sort of hypothesis to contribute to construct validity evaluation. None of the instruments were thoroughly evaluated for all necessary psychometric aspects for their application and result interpretation. Therefore, these instruments' usage should be carefully considered and subject to restrictions. Further research should focus on establishing guidelines aiming to achieve high standards for instrument development and validation in veterinary medicine.
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.