↓ Skip to main content

Robenacoxib versus meloxicam for the management of pain and inflammation associated with soft tissue surgery in dogs: a randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Robenacoxib versus meloxicam for the management of pain and inflammation associated with soft tissue surgery in dogs: a randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-6148-9-92
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philippe Gruet, Wolfgang Seewald, Jonathan N King

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used routinely to control pain and inflammation after surgery in dogs. Robenacoxib is a new NSAID with high selectivity for the cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 isoform of COX. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of robenacoxib for the management of peri-operative pain and inflammation associated with soft tissue surgery in dogs. The study was a prospective, randomized, blinded, positive-controlled, non-inferiority, multi-center clinical trial. A total of 174 dogs undergoing major soft tissue surgery were included and randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to receive either robenacoxib (n = 118) or the positive control, meloxicam (n = 56). Each dog received an initial dose subcutaneously prior to surgery (robenacoxib 2 mg/kg, meloxicam 0.2 mg/kg), followed by daily oral doses (robenacoxib 1--2 mg/kg, meloxicam 0.1 mg/kg) for 12 days (range 10--14) after surgery. Pain and inflammation were assessed subjectively using the Glasgow Composite Pain Scale (GCPS) by clinicians as the primary end point and additional evaluations by the clinicians and animal owners as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Both treatments provided similar pain control, with no significant differences between groups for any efficacy variable using non-parametric analyses (Mann--Whitney U test). In no dog was analgesic rescue therapy administered. Non-inferior efficacy of robenacoxib compared to meloxicam was demonstrated statistically for the primary and all secondary endpoints using parametric analysis of variance, although the data were not normally distributed even after log transformation. For the primary endpoint (reciprocal of the modified GCPS score), the relative efficacy of robenacoxib/meloxicam was 1.12 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.97-1.29.Both treatments were well tolerated and did not affect buccal mucosal bleeding time. CONCLUSION: A treatment regimen of robenacoxib by subcutaneous injection followed by oral tablets had good tolerability and non-inferior efficacy compared to meloxicam for the management of peri-operative pain and inflammation associated with soft tissue surgery in dogs.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 11%
Other 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 13 28%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 17 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 8 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 April 2015.
All research outputs
#3,518,197
of 4,974,025 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#555
of 872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,600
of 92,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#33
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,974,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 872 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 92,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.