Cargando…

Diagnostic reliability of clinical signs in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcers

BACKGROUND: Clinical signs of traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcer are often similar making the disorders difficult to differentiate. The goal of our study was to compare the frequency of individual clinical signs of cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and cows with abomasal ulcers a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Braun, Ueli, Nuss, Karl, Warislohner, Sonja, Reif, Christina, Oschlies, Carina, Gerspach, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7523069/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32993659
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-020-02515-z
_version_ 1783588317760061440
author Braun, Ueli
Nuss, Karl
Warislohner, Sonja
Reif, Christina
Oschlies, Carina
Gerspach, Christian
author_facet Braun, Ueli
Nuss, Karl
Warislohner, Sonja
Reif, Christina
Oschlies, Carina
Gerspach, Christian
author_sort Braun, Ueli
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinical signs of traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcer are often similar making the disorders difficult to differentiate. The goal of our study was to compare the frequency of individual clinical signs of cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and cows with abomasal ulcers and determine their diagnostic significance. The frequency of the findings “rectal temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, demeanour, signs of colic, arched back, abdominal guarding, bruxism, scleral vessels, rumen motility, foreign body tests, percussion auscultation, swinging auscultation and faecal colour” of cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis (TRP, n = 503) and cows with type 1 (U1, n = 94), type 2 (U2, n = 145), type 3 (U3, n = 60), type 4 (U4, n = 87) and type 5 (U5, n = 14) abomasal ulcer were compared, and the reliability indices “diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive values and positive likelihood ratio” were calculated. A total of 182 healthy cows served as controls (control group). RESULTS: None of the cows in the control group had colic, rumen atony or melena, 99% had no abnormalities in demeanor and appetite and did not have a rectal temperature of ≤38.6 or >  40.0 °C, a heart rate >  100 bpm or a respiratory rate >  55 breaths per min, and 95% did not have an arched back or bruxism. The control group was therefore ideal for comparative purposes. Many signs such as mild increase in rectal temperature, scleral congestion and positive foreign body test were non-diagnostic because they occurred in healthy as well as in ill cows. Likewise, differentiation of cows with TRP and abomasal ulcer was not possible based on single clinical variables; a detailed history and a comprehensive assessment of all clinical findings were required for this. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study serve as a guide for the veterinarian in the differentiation of cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7523069
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75230692020-09-30 Diagnostic reliability of clinical signs in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcers Braun, Ueli Nuss, Karl Warislohner, Sonja Reif, Christina Oschlies, Carina Gerspach, Christian BMC Vet Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Clinical signs of traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcer are often similar making the disorders difficult to differentiate. The goal of our study was to compare the frequency of individual clinical signs of cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and cows with abomasal ulcers and determine their diagnostic significance. The frequency of the findings “rectal temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, demeanour, signs of colic, arched back, abdominal guarding, bruxism, scleral vessels, rumen motility, foreign body tests, percussion auscultation, swinging auscultation and faecal colour” of cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis (TRP, n = 503) and cows with type 1 (U1, n = 94), type 2 (U2, n = 145), type 3 (U3, n = 60), type 4 (U4, n = 87) and type 5 (U5, n = 14) abomasal ulcer were compared, and the reliability indices “diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive values and positive likelihood ratio” were calculated. A total of 182 healthy cows served as controls (control group). RESULTS: None of the cows in the control group had colic, rumen atony or melena, 99% had no abnormalities in demeanor and appetite and did not have a rectal temperature of ≤38.6 or >  40.0 °C, a heart rate >  100 bpm or a respiratory rate >  55 breaths per min, and 95% did not have an arched back or bruxism. The control group was therefore ideal for comparative purposes. Many signs such as mild increase in rectal temperature, scleral congestion and positive foreign body test were non-diagnostic because they occurred in healthy as well as in ill cows. Likewise, differentiation of cows with TRP and abomasal ulcer was not possible based on single clinical variables; a detailed history and a comprehensive assessment of all clinical findings were required for this. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study serve as a guide for the veterinarian in the differentiation of cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcer. BioMed Central 2020-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7523069/ /pubmed/32993659 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-020-02515-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Braun, Ueli
Nuss, Karl
Warislohner, Sonja
Reif, Christina
Oschlies, Carina
Gerspach, Christian
Diagnostic reliability of clinical signs in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcers
title Diagnostic reliability of clinical signs in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcers
title_full Diagnostic reliability of clinical signs in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcers
title_fullStr Diagnostic reliability of clinical signs in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcers
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic reliability of clinical signs in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcers
title_short Diagnostic reliability of clinical signs in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcers
title_sort diagnostic reliability of clinical signs in cows with traumatic reticuloperitonitis and abomasal ulcers
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7523069/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32993659
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-020-02515-z
work_keys_str_mv AT braunueli diagnosticreliabilityofclinicalsignsincowswithtraumaticreticuloperitonitisandabomasalulcers
AT nusskarl diagnosticreliabilityofclinicalsignsincowswithtraumaticreticuloperitonitisandabomasalulcers
AT warislohnersonja diagnosticreliabilityofclinicalsignsincowswithtraumaticreticuloperitonitisandabomasalulcers
AT reifchristina diagnosticreliabilityofclinicalsignsincowswithtraumaticreticuloperitonitisandabomasalulcers
AT oschliescarina diagnosticreliabilityofclinicalsignsincowswithtraumaticreticuloperitonitisandabomasalulcers
AT gerspachchristian diagnosticreliabilityofclinicalsignsincowswithtraumaticreticuloperitonitisandabomasalulcers