ArticleThe veterinary quarterly2025
Towards a better understanding of clinical disease activity scores in dogs with chronic enteropathies.
Article in The veterinary quarterly, 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.
- Rethinking clinical response criteria in trials of chronic enteropathy in dogs: what change is truly meaningful?Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- The Collaborative Collapse: Bile Acid Dysmetabolism as a Central Pathogenic Driver in Canine and Feline Multi-Systemic Disorders-From Mechanisms to Precision Therapeutics.Veterinary sciences · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Canine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Activity Index (CIBDAI) and Canine Chronic Enteropathy Clinical Activity Index (CCECAI) are key tools for monitoring chronic enteropathies (CE) in dogs. Despite their widespread use, concerns persist regarding their intra-observer repeatability and inter-observer reproducibility, which may impact clinical and research applications. This study evaluated the reliability of these indices through a two-phase approach using anonymized clinical records. In Phase 1, two observers independently scored 41 consultation forms twice, one month apart, to assess repeatability and reproducibility. Phase 2 involved four observers with varying expertise who scored 59 forms using a standardized guide addressing Phase 1 inconsistencies. Statistical methods included Lin's concordance correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots. High intra-observer repeatability was observed for most variables, but inter-observer reproducibility was limited for CIBDAI, CCECAI, and fluctuating parameters like stool consistency and defecation frequency. The standardized guide marginally improved consistency but did not resolve discrepancies. Expert evaluators did not consistently outperform non-experts. Reproducibility declined in more clinically severe cases. These findings highlight the need for standardized training, dynamic scoring systems, and digital tools to enhance reliability. Addressing these limitations is critical to improve clinical decision-making and research outcomes in canine CE.
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.