ArticleThe Veterinary record2025
Preliminary non-comparative evaluation of an adapted colonoscopy preparation protocol for dogs using sodium picosulphate and magnesium citrate.
Article in The Veterinary record, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChallenges associated with bowel cleansing protocols for canine colonoscopy include practical applicability and inadequate preparations. This study aimed to describe and evaluate an adapted protocol to simplify colonoscopy preparation in dogs.
methodsA low-residue diet and a reduced volume of sodium picosulphate and magnesium citrate laxative were used orally alongside a saline enema. Forty-eight dogs were included. Dogs received different volumes of the laxative and enema, according to their weight categories (<7 kg, 7‒20 kg and >20 kg). Bowel preparation was evaluated using the following scoring system: 0 for inadequate preparation, 1 for moderate preparation, 2 for good preparation and 3 for excellent preparation. Fisher's exact test was applied to assess the relationship between weight categories and preparation scores.
resultsTwo dogs (4%) had a preparation score of 1, 11 dogs (23%) had a score of 2 and 35 dogs (73%) had a score of 3. No dog had a score of 0. Two dogs (4%) experienced nausea. No statistically significant association was found between weight categories and preparation scores (p = 0.46). LIMITATIONS: The limitations of the study include the lack of a defined bowel preparation scale, no comparison with alternative protocols, no statistical assessment of score validation, the potential effects of anaesthetic drugs on bowel motility and the inability to assess interobserver variability when assigning preparation scores due to the use of a consensus approach.
conclusionsThe present protocol for bowel cleansing in dogs before colonoscopy was both effective and easy to implement, with a low occurrence of adverse reactions.
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.