Effectiveness of Medical Treatment on Survivability in Canine Cushing’s Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cushing’s syndrome is one of the most common endocrine disorders in dogs and is typically managed with long-term medical treatment. Several pharmacological agents are available: trilostane, mitotane, ketoconazole, cabergoline, selegiline, and aminoglutethimide, but their comparative effects on survival remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the impact of these agents on survival outcomes in dogs with naturally occurring diseases. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Academic Search Complete, and the Cochrane Library was conducted between 1 September 2024 to 3 January 2025. Eligible studies included dogs diagnosed with Cushing’s syndrome that reported survival outcomes for at least one of the specified treatments. Five studies (n = 295 dogs) met the inclusion criteria, with trilostane and mitotane providing sufficient data for meta-analysis. Pooled mean difference in survival time across four studies was 85.1 days (95% CI: −255.9 to 85.7, p = 0.21) with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 89%), indicating no statistically significant difference between the drugs. In contrast, pooled survival rates at fixed intervals favored trilostane, with an 11% higher survival at 36 months (p = 0.005) and no heterogeneity observed (I2 = 0%). These findings suggest trilostane may offer long-term survival benefits over mitotane.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".