ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2026
Multisite sampling improves consensus cytologic interpretation in bone marrow evaluation of dogs.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBone marrow (BM) evaluation is essential for diagnosing hematologic abnormalities in dogs. Standard practice often involves single-site sampling, despite some evidence suggesting that focal BM lesions may occur. We assessed the probability of obtaining an unrepresentative cytologic interpretation when BM cytology interpretation depends on a single site vs multiple sites. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesSingle-site BM sampling increases the probability of unrepresentative cytologic interpretation in dogs. ANIMALS: Sixteen client-owned dogs with hematologic disease requiring BM sampling were prospectively enrolled.
methodsRandomized, masked clinical trial. We collected 4 BM aspirates per dog: right and left proximal humeri and iliac crests. Interpretative concordance was assessed by comparing individual site interpretations with a composite multisite interpretation. The primary outcome was the probability of a truth-consistent interpretation based on the number of sites sampled (k = 1-4) under 3 evaluation rules, accounting for inter-clinical pathologist agreement.
resultsSingle-site sampling yielded a truth-consistent interpretation in only 50.0%-81.7% of cases, depending on diagnostic stringency. Evaluating 2 sites significantly improved the probability of a truth-consistent interpretation by 17.2%-23.3% (P < .002). Additional sites (2 or 4) offered only marginal further benefit. Inter-clinical pathologist agreement was moderate (kappa = 0.574). No single anatomical site provided superior diagnostic yield for overall interpretation. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: A single BM sampling site carries a higher probability of unrepresentative cytologic interpretation in dogs. Two-site sampling significantly improves recovery of a truth-consistent interpretation, providing a more reliable assessment for hematologic disease in dogs. This approach accounts for potential focal disease distribution, improving diagnostic confidence.
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.