ReviewVeterinary sciences2026
A Systematic Review of Bacterial Sampling Collection for Veterinary Microbiology in Companion Animals.
Review in Veterinary sciences, 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
Accurate microbiological diagnosis in companion animals relies heavily on appropriate sample collection, handling, storage, and transport. This systematic review, conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, aimed to assess current microbiological sampling procedures used in dogs and cats, from specimen collection to laboratory submission. Seventeen studies published in English over the past decade met the inclusion criteria. Considerable variability in sampling practices was observed across different anatomical systems. Although swabs were the most frequently employed sampling method, their use is limited by reduced representativeness and an increased risk of contamination, whereas tissue biopsies and aspirates provide more reliable diagnostic results. Sampling practices were generally more consistent for urine samples; however, pre-laboratory factors, such as prior antimicrobial exposure, as well as transport and storage conditions, were inconsistently reported, hindering reproducibility and standardisation. The anatomical site sampled and the suspected pathogen determined whether aerobic or combined aerobic-anaerobic cultures were recommended. Overall, the findings reveal considerable methodological gaps and underscore the need for harmonised, evidence-based guidelines to support accurate and clinically relevant bacterial culture in veterinary diagnostics. Standardised protocols, developed collaboratively by clinicians and diagnostic laboratories, have the potential to improve diagnostic consistency, strengthen antimicrobial stewardship, enhance surveillance, and ultimately benefit clinical outcomes within One Health initiatives.
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.