4.4 Article

Surveillance of diarrhoea in small animal practice through the Small Animal Veterinary Surveillance Network (SAVSNET)

期刊

VETERINARY JOURNAL
卷 201, 期 3, 页码 412-418

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.05.044

关键词

Breed; Companion animal; Diarrhoea; Surveillance; SAVNET

资金

  1. Dechra
  2. Defra
  3. IntervetSP
  4. Merial
  5. Novartis
  6. Pfizer
  7. University of Liverpool
  8. Virbac
  9. BSAVA
  10. MRC [MR/K006665/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using the Small Animal Veterinary Surveillance Network (SAVSNET), a national small animal disease-surveillance scheme, information on gastrointestinal disease was collected for a total of 76 days between 10 May 2010 and 8 August 2011 from 16,223 consultations (including data from 9115 individual dogs and 3462 individual cats) from 42 premises belonging to 19 UK veterinary practices. During that period, 7% of dogs and 3% of cats presented with diarrhoea. Adult dogs had a higher proportional morbidity of diarrhoea (PMD) than adult cats (P<0.001). This difference was not observed in animals<1 year old. Younger animals in both species had higher PMDs than adult animals (P<0.001). Neutering was associated with reduced PMD in young male dogs. In adult dogs, miniature Schnauzers had the highest PMD. Most animals with diarrhoea (51%) presented having been ill for 2-4 days, but a history of vomiting or haemorrhagic diarrhoea was associated with a shorter time to presentation. The most common treatments employed were dietary modification (66% of dogs; 63% of cats) and antibacterials (63% of dogs; 49% of cats). There was variability in PMD between different practices. The SAVNET methodology facilitates rapid collection of cross-sectional data regarding diarrhoea, a recognised sentinel for infectious disease, and characterises data that could benchmark clinical practice and support the development of evidence-based medicine. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据