ArticleVeterinary sciences2026
Case Report: Pyogranulomatous Panniculitis Mimicking an Invasive Subcutaneous Mass with Muscular Pseudo-Invasion in a Dog.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This report describes an atypical presentation of pyogranulomatous panniculitis and perifolliculitis in an 11-year-old mixed-breed dog. The patient presented with a firm, warm cervical mass that progressed with unusual aggression over a matter of days. While advanced diagnostics, including Computed Tomography (CT) and Ultrasonography (US), provided critical data regarding the lesion's extent, they proved deceptive in determining its etiology; the imaging demonstrated apparent continuity between the mass and the adjacent musculature, strongly favoring a diagnosis of invasive neoplasia. Due to this diagnostic ambiguity and the mass's rapid expansion, the lesion was surgically excised for definitive analysis. Surprisingly, histopathological examination contradicted the clinical and radiographic suspicion of malignancy, identifying instead a severe multifocal-to-coalescing inflammatory process. The patient recovered rapidly postoperatively with no evidence of recurrence. This case highlights that while imaging is an invaluable tool for surgical planning, it cannot reliably differentiate between aggressive inflammatory processes and invasive masses. The patient's rapid recovery with no recurrence reinforces this limitation. Consequently, histopathological examination remains the gold standard for definitively diagnosing and guiding the management of rapidly expanding lesions.
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.