> Detailanzeige

Werner, Melanie; Suchodolski, Jan S.; Lidbury, Jonathan A.; Steiner, Jörg M.; Hartmann, Katrin; Unterer, Stefan

Diagnostic value of fecal cultures in dogs with chronic diarrhea

Literatur-
verwaltung

Zur
Merkliste

Lösche von
Merkliste

Per Whatsapp teilen

Schließen

Merkliste



Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
  • Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: Diagnostic value of fecal cultures in dogs with chronic diarrhea
  • Beteiligte: Werner, Melanie; Suchodolski, Jan S.; Lidbury, Jonathan A.; Steiner, Jörg M.; Hartmann, Katrin; Unterer, Stefan
  • Erschienen: Wiley, 2021
  • Erschienen in: Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, 35 (2021) 1, Seite 199-208
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1111/jvim.15982
  • ISSN: 0891-6640; 1939-1676
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Culture‐based assessment of the fecal microbiome using fecal culture profiles frequently is performed in dogs with chronic diarrhea, but the diagnostic value of this approach has not been determined.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>To compare the reported results of fecal culture profiles and the polymerase chain reaction‐based dysbiosis index (DI) between dogs with chronic diarrhea and healthy dogs; to assess interlaboratory variability in bacterial and fungal cultures among 3 veterinary diagnostic laboratories (diagnostic laboratory 1 [L1], diagnostic laboratory 2 [L2], diagnostic laboratory 3 [L3]); and to compare the reported interpretation of culture profiles (normobiosis versus dysbiosis) with those of the DI.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Animals</jats:title><jats:p>Eighteen dogs with chronic diarrhea (CDG) and 18 healthy control dogs (HG).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>In this prospective, case‐control study, fecal samples were submitted to 3 commercial laboratories for fecal culture. The microbiota was assessed using PCR assays. Dogs receiving antimicrobials were excluded.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Dysbiosis index was significantly increased in CDG (mean, 0.9; SD, 3.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.0; 2.8) compared to HG (mean, −3.0; SD, 2.8; CI, −4.3; −1.6; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .0002), whereas cultures from all laboratories failed to detect significant differences (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .66, .18, and .66, respectively). Hemolytic <jats:italic>Escherichia coli</jats:italic> was the only potential enteropathogen on culture, but no significant difference was found between CDG and HG. For diagnosis of dysbiosis, culture showed no agreement with DI (L1, κ = −0.21; CI, −0.44; −0.02; L2, κ = −0.33; CI, −0.58; −0.08; L3, κ = −0.25; CI, −0.39; −0.11). Furthermore, variability among the 3 laboratories was high (L1/L2, κ = 0.15; CI, −0.05; 0.35; L1/L3, κ = −0.08; CI, −0.01; −0.16; L2/L3, κ = −0.06; CI, −0.33; −0.20).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions and clinical importance</jats:title><jats:p>Fecal cultures failed to distinguish between diseased and healthy dogs, and a high level of interlaboratory variation for culture was found.</jats:p></jats:sec>
  • Zugangsstatus: Freier Zugang