ArticleVeterinary dermatology2026
Use of a Cytobrush for Sampling the Ear Canal of Dogs With Otitis Externa.
Article in Veterinary dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundCytological examination of the ear canal is essential for evaluating dogs with otitis externa (OE). The conventional sampling method uses a swab. However, the cytobrush (gynaecological cervical brush), already used for cytological collection from other anatomical sites, has not been adequately investigated for this purpose in dogs with OE.
objectivesTo compare the cytobrush as a sampling tool for the ear canal of dogs with OE and compare it with the swab technique. ANIMALS: Thirty ears from 17 dogs with OE, presented at a veterinary teaching hospital, were included for sampling. MATERIALS AND
methodsCytological samples were collected using both a cytobrush and a swab in random order. Two independent and blinded evaluators quantified micro-organisms (cocci, bacilli, yeasts), mononuclear cells, polymorphonuclear cells and epithelial cells. Animal discomfort during sampling was assessed using a scoring system.
resultsNo significant differences were found between the methods regarding the presence of micro-organisms or inflammatory and epithelial cells (p > 0.05), indicating equivalence between techniques. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC > 0.9) demonstrated high reproducibility between evaluators. Although the oto-podal reflex was more frequent with the cytobrush, it did not significantly impact overall animal discomfort. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The cytobrush is an effective, safe and well-tolerated sampling method, and may be considered a viable alternative to the swab for collecting samples from the ear canal of dogs with OE.
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.