Evidence Hub

Diagnostic approaches, aetiological agents and their associations with short-term survival and laminitis in horses with acute diarrhoea admitted to referral institutions

Gomez DE, Arroyo LG, Schoster A, Renaud DL, Kopper JJ, Dunkel B, Byrne D, MEDS group et al.

Equine veterinary journal, 2024

10 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An international description of the diagnostic approaches used in different institutions to diagnose acute equine diarrhoea and the pathogens detected is lacking.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the diagnostic approach, aetiological agents, outcome, and development of laminitis for diarrhoeic horses worldwide.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicentre retrospective case series.

METHODS: Information from horses with acute diarrhoea presenting to participating institutions between 2016 and 2020, including diagnostic approaches, pathogens detected and their associations with outcomes, were compared between institutions or geographic regions.

RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and thirty-eight horses from 26 participating institutions from 4 continents were included. Overall, aetiological testing was limited (44% for Salmonella spp., 42% for Neorickettsia risticii [only North America], 40% for Clostridiodes difficile, and 29% for ECoV); however, 13% (81/633) of horses tested positive for Salmonella, 13% (35/262) for N. risticii, 9% (37/422) for ECoV, and 5% (27/578) for C. difficile. C. difficile positive cases had greater odds of non-survival than horses negative for C. difficile (OR: 2.69, 95%CI: 1.23-5.91). In addition, horses that were positive for N. risticii had greater odds of developing laminitis than negative horses (OR: 2.76, 95%CI: 1.12-6.81; p = 0.029).

MAIN LIMITATIONS: Due to the study's retrospective nature, there are missing data.

CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted limited…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free