ReviewVeterinary evidence
The efficacy of recombinant feline interferon-omega in treating symptomatic cats infected with feline immunodeficiency virus.
Review in Veterinary evidence. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PICO question: In symptomatic cats with feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV), does high-dose subcutaneous recombinant feline interferon-omega (rFeIFN-ω) administration lead to reduced clinical signs compared to cats who were not administered rFeIFN-ω? Clinical bottom line: Category of research: Treatment. Number and type of study designs reviewed: Three studies were critically reviewed, including one randomised controlled trial, one non-randomised controlled trial, and one uncontrolled clinical trial. Strength of evidence: Weak. Outcomes reported: Each of the studies reported that rFeIFN-ω administration significantly reduced clinical signs in FIV infected cats. However, all three papers have limitations in their study design and statistical analysis which lower the strength of the evidence they provide. Conclusion: There is only weak evidence demonstrating that rFeIFN-ω administration leads to reduced clinical signs in FIV positive cats. Currently, there is a lack of well-designed, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials which have an adequate sample size and specifically focus on FIV positive cats. As a result, more robust evidence is needed to prove the definitive therapeutic benefit of rFeIFN-ω in symptomatic FIV patients. Treatment with rFeIFN-ω may still be considered by clinicians for cats with clinical signs potentially associated with retroviral infection, such as oral lesions and stomatitis, particularly if they are not responding well to supportive therapy alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.