Sample size and number of outcome measures of veterinary randomised controlled trials of pharmaceutical interventions funded by different sources, a cross-sectional study

The standards of reporting trials in pets (PetSORT): Explanation and elaboration

Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence of the primary research designs for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. However, if RCTs are incompletely reported, the methodological rigor with which they were conducted cannot be reliably evaluated and it may not be possible to replicate the intervention. Missing information also may limit the reader's ability to evaluate the external validity of a trial. Reporting guidelines are available for clinical trials in human healthcare (CONSORT), livestock populations (REFLECT), and preclinical experimental research involving animals (ARRIVE 2.0). The PetSORT guidelines complement these existing guidelines, providing recommendations for reporting controlled trials in pet dogs and cats. The rationale and scientific background are explained for each of the 25 items in the PetSORT reporting recommendations checklist, with examples from well-reported trials.

Study design quality of research on dogs published in peer-reviewed journals

BACKGROUND

In the past it has been criticised that only a low proportion of well-designed and well-reported studies in some medical specialities is available. The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of literature about canine medicine published in peer-reviewed journals in relation to six specific veterinary medicine specialities.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted and 25 studies per speciality were selected. The quality of the articles (n = 150) published between 2007 and 2019 was evaluated with a validated checklist.

RESULTS

In articles related to all specialities, deficits were found, such as not adequate number of animals in 60.0% of the studies. In 88.0%, information about housing and feeding of the dogs were not specified. In 69.4% of the prospective clinical studies, an ethical approval was reported, and written informed consent of the owners was obtained in 46.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings revealed extensive deficits in the design and reporting of studies in canine medicine. The demand for improvement is obvious and should be addressed by authors, reviewers and journal editors in the future. Our results underline that practitioners should critically appraise the quality of literature before implementing information into practice.

Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in Veterinary Medicine: Applying Evidence in Clinical Practice

Critically appraised topics (CATs) are evidence syntheses that provide veterinary professionals with information to rapidly address clinical questions and support the practice of evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM). They also have an important role to play in both undergraduate and post-registration education of veterinary professionals, in research and knowledge gap identification, literature scoping, preparing research grants and informing policy. CATs are not without limitations, the primary one relating to the rapid approach used which may lead to selection bias or restrict information identified or retrieved. Furthermore, the narrow focus of CATs may limit applicability of the evidence findings beyond a specific clinical scenario, and infrequently updated CATs may become redundant. Despite these limitations, CATs are fundamental to EBVM in the veterinary profession. Using the example of a dog with osteoarthritis, the five steps involved in creating and applying a CAT to clinical practice are outlined, with an emphasis on clinical relevance and practicalities. Finally, potential future developments for CATs and their role in EBVM, and the education of veterinary professionals are discussed. This review is focused on critically appraised topics (CATs) as a form of evidence synthesis in veterinary medicine. It aims to be a primary guide for veterinarians, from students to clinicians, and for veterinary nurses and technicians (hereafter collectively called veterinary professionals). Additionally, this review provides further information for those with some experience of CATs who would like to better understand the historic context and process, including further detail on more advanced concepts. This more detailed information will appear in pop-out boxes with a double-lined surround to distinguish it from the information core to producing and interpreting CATs, and from the boxes with a single line surround which contain additional resources relevant to the different parts of the review.

Management of otitis externa with an led-illuminated gel: a randomized controlled clinical trial in dogs

BACKGROUND

Canine otitis externa is a painful condition which can be challenging to treat due to difficulties in the administration of otic medication. This can be due to lack of owner compliance in the application of ear drops or due to the resentment that some dogs demonstrate when attempts are made to administer topical medication into a sensitive ear canal. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of a topical LED-illuminated gel (LIG) in canine otitis externa in comparison to standard of care therapy. Dogs with spontaneous otitis externa were randomly allocated in three groups: groups QW received LIG once weekly; BW received LIG twice weekly; group C received enrofloxacin and silver sulfadiazine twice daily. LIG consists of a topical application of a gel containing chromophores that, when illuminated by a LED lamp, re-emit fluorescent light which can stimulate physiological responses, promoting healing and controlling bacteria. The evaluation protocol (T0 to T5) considered clinical assessment (OTIS-3-index-scoring-system; pruritus-severity-scale; pain-severity-score; aural temperature), cytological scoring system, quali-quantitative bacteriologic assessment.

RESULTS

All groups (QW, n = 21; BW, n = 23; C, n = 20) showed improvement during the study (QW: P < 0.02 for cytological and pain scores, P < 0.003 for bacteriologic assessment, P < 10- 4 for pruritus, total OTIS-3 and temperature assessments; BW: P < 10- 4 for all clinical, cytological and bacteriologic assessments; C: P < 0.02 for all clinical and cytological assessments, P < 10- 4 for bacteriologic assessment). The highest clinical score reduction occurred in Group BW (P < 0.014 in T3; P < 0.001 in T4 and P < 10- 4 in T5). BW reached the clinically relevant effect level at T3 (- 3.26 ± 1.21 levels), QW reached it at T4 (- 3.24 ± 0.99), C did not reach it. No differences between groups were seen in the reduction of CFU/mL (T0-T5).

CONCLUSIONS

All treatment groups showed a positive clinical effect. LIG administered twice-a-week was the most favourable protocol of the study. LIG may be considered beneficial in the management of canine otitis externa; it seems to be effective in controlling the clinical condition, including the signs of inflammation and local pain, the bacterial growth, and it may help increasing treatment compliance.

An empirical assessment of research practices across 163 clinical trials of tumor-bearing companion dogs

Comparative clinical trials of domestic dogs with spontaneously-occurring cancers are increasingly common. Canine cancers are likely more representative of human cancers than induced murine tumors. These trials could bridge murine models and human trials and better prioritize drug candidates. Such investigations also benefit veterinary patients. We aimed to evaluate the design and reporting practices of clinical trials containing ≥2 arms and involving tumor-bearing dogs. 163 trials containing 8552 animals were systematically retrieved from PubMed (searched 1/18/18). Data extracted included sample sizes, response criteria, study design, and outcome reporting. Low sample sizes were prevalent (median n = 33). The median detectable hazard ratio was 0.3 for overall survival and 0.06 for disease progression. Progressive disease thresholds for studies that did not adopt VCOG-RECIST guidelines varied in stringency. Additionally, there was significant underreporting across all Cochrane risk of bias categories. The proportion of studies with unclear reporting ranged from 44% (randomization) to 94% (selective reporting). 72% of studies also failed to define a primary outcome. The present study confirms previous findings that clinical trials in dogs need to be improved, particularly regarding low statistical power and underreporting of design and outcomes.