Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42004550›Full record

ReviewVeterinary evidence

The efficacy of administration of prazosin in reducing the risk of recurrent urethral obstruction in male cats.

Rebecca Hearne

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary evidence. 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

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PICO question: In male cats presenting with urethral obstruction, does administration of prazosin compared with no administration of prazosin reduce the incidence of recurrent urethral obstruction within the first month of initial presentation? Clinical bottom line: Category of research: Treatment. Number and type of study designs reviewed: A total of three studies were included in this appraisal. Two of which were prospective double-blind clinical studies and one retrospective study. Strength of evidence: Weak. Outcomes reported: Both double-blind studies found no significant difference between prazosin administration and the development of recurrent urethral obstruction (rUO) when compared with a placebo. Both studies, however, did report that cats had a shorter urinary catheterisation time with prazosin administration. The retrospective study found no association between prazosin administration and the risk of rUO and found that after 14 days post discharge, significantly more 73/302 (24%) cats that received prazosin had experienced rUO compared to 11/86 (13%) of cats that did not. One study found side effects to the administration of prazosin which may be detrimental to the overall recovery. Conclusion: Administration of prazosin does not reduce the risk of rUO within 30 days of presentation. However, the strength of evidence is weak and would benefit from further clinical studies.

Indexed as

CATSFELINEPRAZOSINRECURRENT URETHRAL OBSTRUCTION

Identifiers

PMID42004550
PMCPMC13011006

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.