ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Comparison of clinicopathologic findings and urine drug screen results in cannabis-positive and control dogs.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cannabis intoxication is increasingly reported in small animal practice, often resulting from accidental ingestion of human products or unsupervised access to the plant. Although clinical signs are well documented, laboratory alterations remain poorly described. This study aimed to confirm cannabis intoxication in dogs using a rapid urinary test for THC metabolites and to investigate associated hematological, biochemical, and urinary alterations. Methods: In this study, nine dogs that were admitted to the emergency veterinary clinic in João Pessoa, Brazil, between 2021 and 2022, with suspected cannabis ingestion and owner confirmation, were evaluated. The animals were included regardless of breed, sex or age, and the results compared with healthy animals (control). Clinical signs were treated supportively. Urine and blood samples were collected 6 h after admission. Dogs were classified as "positive" or "negative/control" based on chromatographic detection of THC metabolites (PoCT COC/THC Assure Tech, Westlake Eco Zone/China; ANVISA 80885650015). Hematological analysis evaluated anemia, leukocyte, and platelet counts; serum biochemistry focused on hepatic and renal markers; urinalysis assessed color, clarity, specific gravity, and pH. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between intoxicated and non-intoxicated dogs in any of the laboratory parameters. Additionally, most animals showed only discrete or absent clinical signs. Discussion: These findings suggest that accidental cannabis ingestion in dogs tends to result in mild physiological effects and minimal laboratory alterations, indicating a low risk of severe toxicity. Nonetheless, accurate identification of exposure using diagnostic tools is essential for appropriate case management. A deeper understanding of the endocannabinoid system in companion animals is key to improving clinical decision-making and assessing potential risks associated with cannabis exposure.
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.