To be able to practice evidence-based veterinary medicine, clinicians need high quality relevant evidence to integrate with their clinical decision making. Relevance is possibly more important than quality as even the best evidence cannot be used if it can't be applied to veterinary practice.
Research waste that refers to research that is undertaken where the results do not influence practice. It has been suggested that over 80% of research is wasted but is currently unknown how widespread this phenomenon is in veterinary medicine. Research waste occurs when research addresses the wrong question, it is poorly designed, executed or reported or not reported at all.
If the research question doesn't include the correct population of interest e.g. First opinion rather than referral caseload, animals with or without co-morbidities, then applying the results to practice will be impossible. The same is true if the interventions, tests and outcomes. One way of ensuring the research question is relevant to the end user is to involve stakeholders in prioritising and planning research. It has been shown by a number of researchers that poor study design and execution occurs frequently in veterinary research. The inadequacies in our evidence base can vary from the selection of inappropriate study design for the question posed through to the selection of inappropriate outcome measures. Poor reporting is also a feature of a large proportion of veterinary research which can hinder the use of the research findings. Even if research is reported well, unless it is open access the key people who could use the results may not be able to read it. We need to examine the ways in which research is currently reported in the veterinary profession and develop additional efficient methods for disseminating research results
All of us (researchers, funders, publishers and users of research) have a vested interest and ethical responsibility in quantifying and reducing research waste in veterinary medicine, This will save money, time and ultimately the lives of patients. This talk will open the debate on this subject and tackle some of the challenges that we may face as we consider a new less wasteful approach to research.
Veterinary Evidence uses the Creative Commons copyright Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. That means users are free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially - with the appropriate citation.
- Sarah Hauser, Elizabeth L Jackson, A Survey of the Non-clinical Benefits of EBVM , Veterinary Evidence: Vol. 2 No. 3 (2017): The third issue of 2017
- Elizabeth Jackson, Sarah Hauser, An Exploratory Study Investigating the Non-Clinical Benefits of Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine , Veterinary Evidence: Vol. 2 No. 2 (2017): The second issue of 2017
- Erik Fausak, Melissa C. Funaro, Andrea C. Kepsel, Erin R.B. Eldermire, Margaret Foster, Hannah F. Norton, Kim Mears, Molly E. Crews, Marnie Brennan, Gillian L. Currie, Megan R. LaFollette, Annette O’Connor, Adrian J. Smith, Kimberley E. Wever, Suzanne Fricke, Systematic reviews of animal studies – Report of an international symposium , Veterinary Evidence: Vol. 8 No. 3 (2023): The third issue of 2023
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Ellie Sellers, Sarah Baillie, Rachel Dean , Sheena Warman, Heidi Janicke, Sebastian P Arlt, Clare Boulton, Marnie Brennan, David Brodbelt, Fiona Brown, Louise Buckley, Myai Du, Emma Gallop, George Goran, Douglas JC Grindlay, Laura Haddock, Joanne Ireland, Catherine McGowan, Heather K Moberly, Emma Place, Md Mizanur Rahman, Gwen Rees, Kristen Reyher, Javier Sanchez, Johan P Schoeman, Laura Urdes, John VanLeeuwen, Kristien Verheyen, Promoting Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine through the online resource ‘EBVM Learning’: User feedback , Veterinary Evidence: Vol. 6 No. 1 (2021): The first issue of 2021