ArticlePloS one2026
Evidence-based interpretation of uterine cultures in mares: Linking bacterial growth patterns to endometrial inflammation.
Article in PloS one, 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
We evaluated uterine bacterial growth patterns and their association with endometrial inflammation (EI) in equine samples collected using uterine swabs (US) or low-volume uterine lavage (UL). A database including 1,545 US and 2,066 UL with cytological and bacteriological results was retrospectively analysed. Endometrial inflammation was defined as ≥2 polymorphonuclear cells per high-power field, and bacterial culture was considered positive when aerobic growth occurred within 48 h, with the number of bacterial isolates per sample recorded (0, 1, 2, or ≥3). Data were analysed using generalized mixed-effects models including the number of isolates and bacterial species as fixed effects. The prevalence of EI was 4.8% for US and 36.6% for UL. For both techniques, EI prevalence was lower in samples with negative bacterial cultures (1.0 ± 0.3% for US and 10.7 ± 1.7% for UL) compared with samples yielding ≥1 bacterial isolate. In UL samples, isolation of a single bacterial species was associated with greater probability of EI (45.1 ± 2.6%) compared with samples yielding ≥3 isolates (33.3 ± 3.1%). For UL, the presence of Streptococcus sp. (β-haemolytic) and Staphylococcus aureus increased the probability of EI compared with their absence, whereas in US samples only Streptococcus sp. (β-haemolytic) increased EI probability. In conclusion, bacterial growth increased the likelihood of EI for both sampling techniques, with Streptococcus sp. (β-haemolytic) as the primary bacteria associated with evidence of EI. The integration of endometrial cytology with bacterial culture and pathogen identification improves interpretation of bacteriological findings and supports responsible antimicrobial use in mares.
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.