ArticleBrazilian journal of veterinary medicine2026
Evaluation of DNA extraction from different canine lymphoma sample types for PARR analysis.
Article in Brazilian journal of veterinary 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the performance of DNA extraction using the phenol-chloroform method across different types of canine lymphoma samples, with the aim of applying it to PARR. A total of 48 samples previously diagnosed as lymphoma were analyzed, including lymph node aspirates, cytological slides, andparaffin-embedded tissue blocks. DNA concentration was measured by spectrophotometry, and DNA suitability was confirmed by conventional PCR targeting a lymphocyte-specific endogenous control. No statistically significant differences were observed among the groups regarding DNA concentration (p > 0.05), with the following pairwise comparisons: paraffin-embedded tissue versus aspirate (p = 0.6827), aspirate versus cytological slide (p = 0.2242), and paraffin-embedded tissue versus cytological slide (p = 0.1173). All samples showed successful amplification, and the method demonstrated consistent performance, enabling the use of a single extraction protocol applicable to all three sample types, thereby showing potential as an accessible and standardizable approach for preparing samples for the PARR assay.
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.