The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety

Long-chain monounsaturated fatty acids improve endothelial function with altering microbial flora

Fish oil-derived long-chain monounsaturated fatty acids (LCMUFAs) with a carbon chain length longer than 18 units ameliorate cardiovascular risk in mice. In this study, we investigated whether LCMUFAs could improve endothelial functions in mice and humans. In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multi-center study, healthy subjects were randomly assigned to either an LCMUFA oil (saury oil) or a control oil (olive and tuna oils) group. Sixty subjects were enrolled and administrated each oil for 4 weeks. For the animal study, ApoE^-/- mice were fed a Western diet supplemented with 3% of either gadoleic acid (C20:1) or cetoleic acid (C22:1) for 12 weeks. Participants from the LCMUFA group showed improvements in endothelial function and a lower trimethylamine-N-oxide level, which is a predictor of coronary artery disease. C20:1 and C22:1 oils significantly improved atherosclerotic lesions and plasma levels of several inflammatory cytokines, including IL-6 and TNF-α. These beneficial effects were consistent with an improvement in the gut microbiota environment, as evident from the decreased ratio of Firmicutes and/ or Bacteroidetes, increase in the abundance of Akkermansia, and upregulation of short-chain fatty acid (SCFA)-induced glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) expression and serum GLP-1 level. These data suggest that LCMUFAs alter the microbiota environment that stimulate the production of SCFAs, resulting in the induction of GLP-1 secretion. Fish oil-derived long-chain monounsaturated fatty acids might thus help to protect against cardiovascular disease.

Efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (MA) was conducted to address the question, 'What is the efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine?' Four electronic databases and the grey literature were searched to identify clinical trials in healthy swine where at least one intervention arm was a commercially available vaccine for one or more bacterial pathogens associated with respiratory disease in swine, including Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, Actinobacillus pleuropneumonia, Actinobacillus suis, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Pasteurella multocida, Stretococcus suis, Haemophils parasuis, and Mycoplasma hyorhinis. To be eligible, trials had to measure at least one of the following outcomes: incidence of clinical morbidity, mortality, lung lesions, or total antibiotic use. There were 179 eligible trials identified in 146 publications. Network MA was undertaken for morbidity, mortality, and the presence or absence of non-specific lung lesions. However, there was not a sufficient body of research evaluating the same interventions and outcomes to allow a meaningful synthesis of the comparative efficacy of the vaccines. To build this body of research, additional rigor in trial design and analysis, and detailed reporting of trial methods and results are warranted.

The efficacy of litter management strategies to prevent morbidity and mortality in broiler chickens: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to address the question, 'What is the efficacy of litter management strategies to reduce morbidity, mortality, condemnation at slaughter, or total antibiotic use in broilers?' Eligible studies were clinical trials published in English evaluating the efficacy of litter management in broilers on morbidity, condemnations at slaughter, mortality, or total antibiotic use. Multiple databases and two conference proceedings were searched for relevant literature. After relevance screening and data extraction, there were 50 trials evaluating litter type, 22 trials evaluating litter additives, 10 trials comparing fresh to re-used litter, and six trials evaluating floor type. NMAs were conducted for mortality (61 trials) and for the presence or absence of footpad lesions (15 trials). There were no differences in mortality among the litter types, floor types, or additives. For footpad lesions, peat moss appeared beneficial compared to straw, based on a small number of comparisons. In a pairwise meta-analysis, there was no association between fresh versus used litter on the risk of mortality, although there was considerable heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 66%). There was poor reporting of key design features in many studies, and analyses rarely accounted for non-independence of observations within flocks.

The efficacy of antibiotics to control colibacillosis in broiler poultry: a systematic review

The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics to prevent or control colibacillosis in broilers. Studies found eligible were conducted controlled trials in broilers that evaluated an antibiotic intervention, with at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, feed conversion ratio (FCR), condemnations at slaughter, or total antibiotic use. Four electronic databases plus the gray literature were searched. Abstracts were screened for eligibility and data were extracted from eligible trials. Risk of bias was evaluated.Seven trials reported eligible outcomes in a format that allowed data extraction; all reported results for FCR and one also reported mortality. Due to the heterogeneity in the interventions and outcomes evaluated, it was not feasible to conduct meta-analysis.Qualitatively, for FCR, comparisons between an antibiotic and an alternative product did not show a significant benefit for either. Some of the comparisons between an antibiotic and a no-treatment placebo showed a numerical benefit to antibiotics, but with wide confidence intervals. The risk-of-bias assessment revealed concerns with reporting of key trial features.The results of this review do not provide compelling evidence for or against the efficacy of antibiotics for the control of colibacillosis.

A systematic review of the efficacy of antibiotics for the prevention of swine respiratory disease

Prevention and control of respiratory disease is a major contributor to antibiotic use in swine. A systematic review was conducted to address the question, 'What is the comparative efficacy of antimicrobials for the prevention of swine respiratory disease?' Eligible studies were controlled trials published in English evaluating prophylactic antibiotics in swine, where clinical morbidity, mortality, or total antibiotic use was assessed. Four databases and the gray literature were searched for relevant articles. Two reviewers working independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility followed by full-text articles, and then extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for eligible trials. There were 44 eligible trials from 36 publications. Clinical morbidity was evaluated in eight trials where antibiotics were used in nursery pigs and 10 trials where antibiotics were used in grower pigs. Mortality was measured in 22 trials in nursery pigs and 12 trials in grower pigs. There was heterogeneity in the antibiotic interventions and comparisons published in the literature; thus, there was insufficient evidence to allow quantification of the efficacy, or relative efficacy, of antibiotic interventions. Concerns related to statistical non-independence and quality of reporting were noted in the included trials.

Invited review: Completeness of reporting of experiments: REFLECTing on a year of animal trials in the Journal of Dairy Science

Reproducibility is an essential element of the scientific process, and it requires clear and complete reporting of study design, conduct, and analysis. In the human and animal health literature, incomplete reporting is associated with biased effect estimates. Moreover, incomplete reporting precludes knowledge synthesis and undervalues the resources allocated to the primary research. The Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials for Livestock and Food Safety (REFLECT) statement, published in 2010, is a checklist developed by expert consensus to provide guidance on what study elements should be reported in any intervention trial (designed experiment) involving livestock. The Journal of Dairy Science (JDS) has recently endorsed the use of reporting guidelines. To assess the status of reporting of controlled experiments in JDS and to provide a baseline for future comparison, we evaluated the reporting of 18 items from the REFLECT statement checklist in a sample of 137 controlled trials published in JDS in 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance and then evaluated a sample of 120 papers reporting controlled trials (experimental studies involving at least one intervention and one comparison or control group), using yes or no questions. Although some items, such as treatment details and statistical analysis, were well reported, other areas, including sample size justification, allocation concealment, blinding, study flow, baseline data, and ancillary analyses, were often not reported or were incompletely described. This work highlights the need for authors and reviewers to take advantage of guidelines and checklists for reporting. Adherence to reporting guidelines can help improve the completeness of reporting of research, expedite and better inform the peer-review process, increase clarity for the reader, and allow for knowledge synthesis, such as meta-analysis, all of which serve to increase the value of the work conducted.

The reporting characteristics of bovine respiratory disease clinical intervention trials published prior to and following publication of the REFLECT statement

The goal of the REFLECT Statement (Reporting guidElines For randomized controLled trials in livEstoCk and food safeTy) (published in 2010) was to provide the veterinary research community with reporting guidelines tailored for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of REFLECT Statement reporting of items 1-19 in controlled trials published in journals between 1970 and 2017 examining the comparative efficacy of FDA-registered antimicrobials against naturally acquired BRD (bovine respiratory disease) in weaned beef calves in Canada or the USA, and to compare the prevalence of reporting before and after 2010, when REFLECT was published. We divided REFLECT Statement, items 3, 5, 10, and 11 into subitems, because each dealt with multiple elements requiring separate assessment. As a result, 28 different items or subitems were evaluated independently. We searched MEDLINE^® and CABI (CAB Abstracts^® and Global Health^®) (Web of Science™) in April 2017 and screened 2327 references. Two reviewers independently assessed the reporting of each item and subitem. Ninety-five references were eligible for the study. The reporting of the REFLECT items showed a point estimate for the prevalence ratio >1 (i.e. a higher proportion of studies published post-2010 reported this item compared to studies published pre-2010), apart from items 10.3, i.e., item 10, subitem 3 (who assigned study units to the interventions), 13 (the flow of study units through the study), 16 (number of study units in analysis), 18 (multiplicity), and 19 (adverse effects). Fifty-three (79%) of 67 studies published before 2010 and all 28 (100%) papers published after 2010 reported using a random allocation method in either the title, abstract, or methods (Prevalence ratio = 1.25; 95% CI (1.09,1.43)). However, 8 studies published prior to 2010 and 7 studies published post-2010 reported the term "systematic randomization" or variations of this term (which is not true randomization) to describe the allocation procedure. Fifty-five percent (37/67) of studies published pre-2010 reported blinding status (blinded/not blinded) of outcome assessors, compared to 24/28 (86%) of studies published post-2010 (Prevalence ratio = 1.5, 95% CI (1.19, 2.02)). The reporting of recommended items in journal articles in this body of work is generally improving; however, there is also evidence of confusion about what constitutes a random allocation procedure, and this suggests an educational need. As this study is observational, this precludes concluding that the publication of the REFLECT Statement was the cause of this trend.

Methods and Processes of Developing the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-Veterinary (STROBE-Vet) Statement

Reporting of observational studies in veterinary research presents challenges that often are not addressed in published reporting guidelines. Our objective was to develop an extension of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement that addresses unique reporting requirements for observational studies in veterinary medicine related to health, production, welfare, and food safety. We conducted a consensus meeting with 17 experts in Mississauga, Canada. Experts completed a premeeting survey about whether items in the STROBE statement should be modified or added to address unique issues related to observational studies in animal species with health, production, welfare, or food safety outcomes. During the meeting, each STROBE item was discussed to determine whether or not rewording was recommended, and whether additions were warranted. Anonymous voting was used to determine consensus. Six items required no modifications or additions. Modifications or additions were made to the STROBE items 1 (title and abstract), 3 (objectives), 5 (setting), 6 (participants), 7 (variables), 8 (data sources and measurement), 9 (bias), 10 (study size), 12 (statistical methods), 13 (participants), 14 (descriptive data), 15 (outcome data), 16 (main results), 17 (other analyses), 19 (limitations), and 22 (funding). The methods and processes used were similar to those used for other extensions of the STROBE statement. The use of this STROBE statement extension should improve reporting of observational studies in veterinary research by recognizing unique features of observational studies involving food-producing and companion animals, products of animal origin, aquaculture, and wildlife.

An introduction to systematic reviews in animal health, animal welfare, and food safety

In this paper, we provide an introduction to systematic reviews and discuss the process for conducting systematic reviews in animal health, animal welfare, and food safety. The research synthesis need that can be addressed by a systematic review is discussed. The use of systematic reviews to address questions about intervention effects, etiology, diagnostic tests evaluation and disease burden are discussed. The steps included in a systematic review are described.

Growth and inactivation of Salmonella at low refrigerated storage temperatures and thermal inactivation on raw chicken meat and laboratory media: mixed effect meta-analysis

Growth and inactivation regression equations were developed to describe the effects of temperature on Salmonella concentration on chicken meat for refrigerated temperatures (⩽10 °C) and for thermal treatment temperatures (55–70 °C). The main objectives were: (i) to compare Salmonella growth/inactivation in chicken meat versus laboratory media; (ii) to create regression equations to estimate Salmonella growth in chicken meat that can be used in quantitative risk assessment (QRA) modeling; and (iii) to create regression equations to estimate D-values needed to inactivate Salmonella in chicken meat. A systematic approach was used to identify the articles, critically appraise them, and pool outcomes across studies. Growth represented in density (Log₁₀ CFU/g) and D-values (min) as a function of temperature were modeled using hierarchical mixed effects regression models. The current meta-analysis analysis found a significant difference (P ⩽ 0.05) between the two matrices – chicken meat and laboratory media – for both growth at refrigerated temperatures and inactivation by thermal treatment. Growth and inactivation were significantly influenced by temperature after controlling for other variables; however, no consistent pattern in growth was found. Validation of growth and inactivation equations against data not used in their development is needed.

The REFLECT statement: reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials in livestock and food safety: explanation and elaboration

Concerns about the completeness and accuracy of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the impact of poor reporting on decision-making have been documented in the medical field over the past several decades. Experience from RCTs in human medicine would suggest that failure to report critical trial features can be associated with biased estimated effect measures, and there is evidence to suggest similar biases occur in RCTs conducted in livestock populations. In response to these concerns, standardized guidelines for reporting RCTs were developed and implemented in human medicine. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first published in 1996 with a revised edition published in 2001. The CONSORT statement consists of a 22-item checklist for reporting a RCT and a flow diagram to follow the number of participants at each stage of a trial. An explanation and elaboration document not only defines and discusses the importance of each of the items, but also provides examples of how this information could be supplied in a publication. Differences between human and livestock populations necessitate modifications to the CONSORT statement to maximize its usefulness for RCTs involving livestock. These have been addressed in an extension of the CONSORT statement titled the REFLECT statement: Methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized control trials for livestock and food safety. The modifications made for livestock trials specifically addressed the common use of group housing and group allocation to intervention in livestock studies, the use of a deliberate challenge model in some trials, and common use of non-clinical outcomes, such as contamination with a foodborne pathogen. In addition, the REFLECT statement for RCTs in livestock populations proposed specific terms or further clarified terms as they pertained to livestock studies.