ArticleTierarztliche Praxis. Ausgabe G, Grosstiere/Nutztiere2026
[Retrospective evaluation of equine blood cultures sampled between 2022 and 2024].
Article in Tierarztliche Praxis. Ausgabe G, Grosstiere/Nutztiere, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In this study, the results of equine blood cultures sampled during the period from 2022 to 2024 were evaluated. Samples were submitted as routine samples by veterinary practices to a veterinary diagnostic laboratory in Germany. The study focused mainly on the differentiation of the bacterial isolates. In order to place the results in a clinical context, the study was complemented by a questionnaire sent to the practices enquiring for sepsis-associated clinical signs. Material and methods: The study was carried out retrospectively. A total of 199 blood culture samples submitted by practices located in Germany and other European countries were included into the evaluation. A questionnaire asking for the reason of the individual blood collection and possible presence of sepsis-associated clinical signs was sent to the relevant practices and the returning responses were analyzed. Results: 50.3% (n=100) of the blood culture samples showed a positive result, divided into 71% monomicrobial and 29% polymicrobial samples. Staphylococci were most frequently detected (30.2%), followed by bacteria of the genus Enterobacterales (18.9%). Nearly half of the horses (41.3%) was pretreated with antibiotics at the time of sample collection. Respiratory infection was the most frequently listed reason (17.4%) for initiation of a blood culture analysis. Conclusion: The results of the present study are comparable to previous studies. The isolates were not classified into clinically relevant pathogens and contaminants, as for the majority of patients only one sampling timepoint was available, making any isolate a potential causative agent for bacteremia. Clinical relevance: Sepsis is not a specific condition, but is based on the clinical findings and the result of the performed blood culture analysis. Considering the duration of a bacteriological culture procedure as well as the commonly critical condition of the patient, availability of data concerning the most frequently occurring pathogens is essential in rapidly initiating adequate treatment.
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.