ArticleVeterinary dermatology2026
Randomised, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Challenge Test With Single Food Items in Dogs With Atopic Dermatitis and Adverse Food Reactions.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdentification of offending foods in dogs with adverse food reactions is usually based on "deterioration" during open food challenges.
objectivesTo examine the placebo effect during double-blinded, placebo-controlled food challenges using a predefined set of criteria for relapse. ANIMALS: Twelve dogs with atopic dermatitis and adverse food reactions. MATERIALS AND
methodsDogs were serially challenged with 40 g/day of eight food items (beef, chicken, codfish, corn flour, cow's milk, hen's egg, lamb, wheat), for 1 week, each mixed with their elimination diet and water. An additional two challenges were placebo (elimination diet mixed with water). Owners and investigators were blinded to the challenges and the order of the 10 challenges was randomised for each dog. Relapse was defined as moderate-to-severe owner global assessment of challenge deterioration and/or > 100% increase of Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index, 4th iteration (CADESI-04) score (with the score at the end being > 9) and/or > 100% increase of pruritus using a Visual Analog Scale (with the score at the end being > 1.9/10).
resultsMost (91.7%) dogs were positive to one to six challenges with food items, yet half of them also were falsely positive in one placebo challenge. Two dogs had only one placebo challenge. The number of positive challenges to foods did not differ between dogs with positive and negative placebo challenges. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The placebo effect during double-blinded food challenges creates doubts about the accuracy of the results of challenges with food items in this and in previous studies where open food challenges were used.
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.