Therapeutic Management of Feline Chronic Gingivostomatitis: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Winer JN., Arzi B., Verstraete FJ.
Systematic Review, published in Front Vet Sci (2016) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Front Vet Sci (2016)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 27486584
- PMCID
- PMC4947586
- DOI
- 10.3389/fvets.2016.00054
- Citations
- 49
Abstract (original English)
Feline chronic gingivostomatitis (FCGS) is a disease characterized by protracted and potentially debilitating oral inflammation in cats, the etiology of which is currently unknown. The purpose of this review is to apply an evidence-based medicine approach to systematically review and critically evaluate the scientific literature reporting the outcome of medical and surgical management of FCGS. Those articles meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed and assigned an "Experimental Design Grade" (EDG) and an "Evidence Grade" (EG) in order to score relative strength of study design and produced data. Studies were evaluated and compared, especially highlighting the treatments, the outcomes, and the therapeutic success rates. This review found a lack of consistency between articles' data, rendering direct comparison of results unreliable. The field of FCGS research, and ultimately patient care, would benefit from standardizing studies by adopting use of a consistent semi-quantitative scoring system and extending follow-up duration. Future researchers should commit to large prospective studies that compare existing treatments and demonstrate the promise of new treatments.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.