ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Interpreting cranial abdominal coverage after caudal epidural local anesthetic administration in dogs and cats.
Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Caudal epidural local anesthetic administration is used in dogs and cats and may be interpreted as contributing to cranial abdominal coverage, but favorable perioperative outcomes do not identify the cranial extent or completeness of the local-anesthetic block. This conceptual analysis distinguishes anatomical distribution, functional attenuation of predefined stimuli, physiological tolerance, and composite perioperative clinical performance. In feline ovarian surgery, 0.3 ml/kg regimens have produced heterogeneous clinical outcomes, whereas target-oriented CT mapping did not show uniform bilateral T10-T11 foraminal reach even with cumulative iohexol volumes of 0.75-1.0 ml/kg. Differences in injectate, dosing sequence, and endpoint preclude a direct dose-response comparison, but the magnitude of this discrepancy makes consistent complete bilateral coverage after 0.3 ml/kg a less plausible explanation for favorable outcomes. Canine data support prospective testing of a 0.6 ml/kg dose-volume regimen; feline data support comparison of 1.0 ml/kg as an adequacy-oriented candidate with 0.75 ml/kg as a lower comparator. Future studies should aim to connect target-oriented anatomical mapping, procedure-relevant functional testing, physiological assessment, and clinical evaluation using closely matched regimens, with any necessary differences made explicit.
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.