↓ Skip to main content

The main factors influencing canine demodicosis treatment outcome and determination of optimal therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Parasitology Research, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The main factors influencing canine demodicosis treatment outcome and determination of optimal therapy
Published in
Parasitology Research, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00436-015-4543-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Milica Arsenović, Lato Pezo, Nebojša Vasić, Rodoljub Ćirić, Milan Stefanović

Abstract

The main idea of this research was to evaluate the efficacy of canine demodicosis conventional treatments using mathematical analyses. All available papers published between 1980 and 2014 were used in this study. One hundred six clinical trials enrolling 3414 cases of generalized demodicosis in dogs are studied. Dogs entered in the analysis were only the ones in which the disease occurred naturally, excluding the studies in which transplantation of Demodex canis mites was done from other animals. In conventional acaricide treatments, sorted according to active substances (moxidectin, amitraz, doramectin, ivermectin, and milbemycin oxime), the way of application (spot-on, dips, orally, or subcutaneous), concentration, and interval of application were used as input parameters in mathematical modeling. Data of interest were the treatment outcome, the number of dogs that went into remission, the number of animals not responding to treatment microscopically, the average duration of therapy, the follow-up period, the number of patients with disease recurrence, the number of adverse effects, and the number of animals with side effects. Dogs lost to follow-up or when the treatment was discontinued, due to various reasons not in connection with the therapy protocol, were not considered. Statistical and mathematical analyses were applied for prediction of the drugs' effectiveness. Developed mathematical models showed satisfactorily r (2), higher than 0.87. Good evidence for recommending the use of milbemycin oxime PO (0.5 mg/kg, daily) and moxidectin spot-on (Advocate®, Bayer) weekly is found. A bit less effective therapies were based on ivermectin PO (0.5 mg/kg, daily), moxidectin PO (0.35 mg/kg, daily), and amitraz dips (0.05 % solution, weekly), respectively. It is important to keep in mind that Advocate® is recommended by the manufacturer for use in milder cases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 15 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Materials Science 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,687,958
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Parasitology Research
#1,608
of 3,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,609
of 266,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasitology Research
#33
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,785 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.