SynthesisThe Veterinary record2026
Treatment of discospondylitis in dogs: A systematic review.
Synthesis in The Veterinary record, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth medical and surgical techniques have been reported to manage canine discospondylitis, although data on clinical effectiveness and long-term prognosis remain limited.
methodsA systematic review of studies on treatment approaches, follow-up data and investigation methods was conducted. Each study was evaluated for evidence quality (study design, sample size, disease characterisation, healing assessment and risk of bias) and outcome measures (treatment success, follow-up methods and long-term outcomes) using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
resultsForty-eight studies on medical and surgical management were included. All were classified as low-quality evidence with a high risk of bias. Medical and surgical interventions had success rates of 68.75% and 75%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: All studies had a high risk of bias and low-quality evidence due to their retrospective design and lack of randomisation.
conclusionAntibiotics should be considered the first-line treatment when vertebral instability or disc extrusion is absent, guided by culture and sensitivity testing to ensure appropriate selection, with a mean treatment duration of 105 days. Surgical intervention is reserved for cases of failure of medical management and spinal instability, while percutaneous discectomy represents a promising adjunctive option in selected patients.
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.