Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41803933›Full record

ArticleJournal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics2026

Perceptions of Medications and Supplements by U.S. Dog-Interested Members of the Public and Final-Year Veterinary Students.

Sidonie T Gallinger, Johanna C Heseltine, Kate Illing, Virginia R Fajt, Dog Aging Project Consortium, Kate E Creevy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sidonie T GallingerVeterinary Small Animal Hospital, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
Johanna C HeseltineDepartment of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, College Station, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6248-8668
Kate IllingDepartment of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, College Station, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9548-966X
Virginia R FajtDepartment of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, College Station, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0697-7149
Dog Aging Project Consortium
Kate E CreevyDepartment of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, College Station, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4169-374X

Funding

The Dog Aging Project: Genetic and Environmental Determinants of Healthy Aging in Companion Dogs Competitive RevisionU19AG057377 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI PROMISLOW, DANIEL EDWARD · 2018 to 2023
$29.0M
Glenn Foundation for Medical ResearchNIA NIH HHS AG057377NIA NIH HHS U19 AG057377Tiny Foundation Fund at Myriad CanadaWoodNext Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Veterinary graduates must be prepared to educate clients about medications and supplements. We surveyed 1955 Dog Aging Project newsletter recipients and 40 final-year veterinary students at Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences on their perceptions about medications and supplements. Respondents indicated whether each of 13 attributes applied to medications, supplements, neither, both, or "I'm not sure." Frequency of responses by newsletter recipient respondents versus student respondents, respectively, were evaluated. We observed differences in the majority response for: (1) target a specific ailment (51% for newsletter recipients versus 62% for students, respectively); (2) target a specific condition (54% vs. 40%); (3) promote health and wellness (51% vs. 38%); (4) prevent worsening of a condition (60% vs. 72%); (5) are added to food (58% vs. 80%); (6) are recommended by a veterinarian (58% vs. 82%); (7) are covered by pet insurance (57% vs. 80%); and (8) are given to the animal long term or lifelong (55% vs. 72%). The overall distribution of responses was statistically significantly different between groups for three attributes: added to food (p < 0.001); recommended by a veterinarian (p = 0.005); and covered by pet insurance (p < 0.001). While a majority of both groups recognized that only medications are tested and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 15% of final-year veterinary students indicated that they thought both supplements and medications are FDA regulated, which suggests an important educational gap.

Indexed as

drugeducationnutraceuticalover‐the‐counterprescription

Identifiers

PMID41803933
PMCPMC13040476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.