Reporting quality of abstracts of veterinary randomized controlled trials

Evidence-based veterinary medicine-potential, practice, and pitfalls

Understanding and incorporating evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM) into clinical practice and research continues to pose a challenge for our profession despite over 2 decades of increasing awareness of this concept. Reasons for this include a lack of understanding of its importance to the practice of medicine, veterinary literature that often fails to adhere to evidence-based standards, inadequate attention to teaching EBVM at the university level, and the inherent reluctance of clinicians to alter historical practice styles. For many practitioners, EBVM continues to be an abstract concept they believe requires advanced training in statistics and epidemiology resulting in them relying on less robust sources for clinical guidance. This unfortunately results in suboptimal care for our patients and delayed medical advancements for our profession. As part of the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine Association (EBVMA), we are refocusing our efforts to highlight the need for dedicated teaching of EBVM at the university level, for rigorous adherence to established research reporting guidelines, for expansion of EBVM infrastructure, and for the provision of easily accessible tools that permit clinicians to incorporate EBVM into their daily practice. As the quality of veterinary literature improves, so too will development of more effective clinical practice guidelines that ultimately can be widely adopted if they are flexible enough to support the triadic relationship between veterinarians, our clients and our patients. Ultimately, EBVM is not an end unto itself, but rather a means to improve the quality of care we provide our patients.

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.

Most veterinarians treating exotic animals use formularies to select drug dosages without consistently checking their sources

OBJECTIVE

To assess what information sources veterinarians use to select drug dosages for treating exotic animals and how they implement this information.

SAMPLE

936 veterinarians from Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, and the Americas.

PROCEDURES

An anonymous, online survey was used to collect data on information sources used for dosage decisions by veterinarians treating exotic species. Logistic regression models were built to identify associations between individual characteristics and primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Respondents reported their single most common source for establishing drug dosages as formularies (682/936 [72.9%]), followed by scientific journals (96 [10.3%]), other textbooks (68 [7.3%]), colleagues (47 [5.0%]), or continuing education notes (38 [4.1%]). Over two-thirds of the respondents (645, 68.9%) consulted a specific exotic animal formulary for establishing drug dosages in most situations. Of the 936 respondents, 407 (43.5%) reported that they sometimes (318 [34.0%]) or never (89 [9.5%]) checked the source of a dosage in a textbook or a formulary, 503 (55.3%) reported that they sometimes (399 [42.6%]) or never (104 [11.1%]) searched the original publication on a dosage, and 486 (51.9%) reported that they would base their dosage decision on the abstract of an article if they had no access to the full-text. Several respondents' reported characteristics were significant predictors of primary outcomes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Considering our findings, we recommend authors of formularies and textbooks should focus on evidence-based information and state clearly when information is anecdotal. Tailored strategies to educate veterinarians treating exotic animals on the importance of primary sources are also recommended.

Quality of reporting of clinical trials in dogs and cats: An update

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive reporting of clinical trials is essential to allow the trial reader to evaluate the methodological rigor of the trial and interpret the results. Since publication of the updated Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for reporting of parallel clinical trials in humans, extensions for reporting of abstracts and crossover trials have been published.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the types of trials using dogs and cats published from 2015 to 2020 and to evaluate the quality of reporting of a sample of recently published parallel and crossover trials.

ANIMALS

None.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify parallel or crossover design clinical trials using dogs and cats published from January 1, 2015 onwards. Quality of reporting was evaluated on a subset of trials published during 2019. The reporting of items recommended in the CONSORT reporting guidelines for abstracts, parallel trials, and crossover trials was evaluated independently by 2 reviewers using standardized forms created for this study. Disagreements among reviewers were resolved by consensus. Results were tabulated descriptively.

RESULTS

The frequency of reporting of trial features varied from low to high. There remain deficiencies in the quality of reporting of key methodological features and information needed to evaluate and interpret trial results.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

There is still a need for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors to follow reporting guidelines such as CONSORT to maximize the value of clinical trials and to increase confidence in the validity of the trial results.