https://veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/issue/feed Veterinary Evidence 2020-05-21T12:32:33+00:00 Jennifer Morris Jennifer@rcvsknowledge.org Open Journal Systems Veterinary Evidence is an online only, open access, peer-reviewed journal owned and published by RCVS Knowledge. It publishes content relating to evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM) and its application in veterinary practice to enhance the quality of care provided to patients. https://veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/297 Is TTA better than lateral suture in small dogs with cruciate disease? 2020-05-13T12:11:49+00:00 Tafara Mapuvire tmapuvire@surgivet.co.za <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>In dogs weighing under 15 kg with unilateral cranial cruciate ligament disease, does tibial tuberosity advancement lead to better long-term functional outcomes than lateral fabellar suture?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong>Category of research question</strong></p> <p>Treatment</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>There were no papers that answered the PICO question</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence</strong></p> <p>Zero</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>Between TTA and LFS none of the techniques was shown to provide better long-term functional outcomes than the other in dogs weighing less than 15 kg</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>Given the absence of evidence answering the PICO question, choice and recommendation of procedure between TTA and LFS in dogs weighing under 15 kg should be guided by what the surgeon deems to be in the best interest of the patient</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-05-13T12:05:29+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Tafara Mapuvire https://veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/306 Is a cross-match necessary before a cat’s first blood transfusion? 2020-05-06T15:58:11+00:00 Ben Safrany ben.safrany@paragonreferrals.co.uk Sophie Adamantos sophie.adamantos@paragonreferrals.co.uk <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>In transfusion-naïve cats receiving a type specific blood transfusion is cross-matched blood (major and minor) associated with an increased haematocrit development and reduction in acute transfusion reactions when compared with those receiving non-crossmatched blood?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong>Category of research question </strong></p> <p>Treatment</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>Ten papers were critically reviewed. There were four retrospective case series, three prospective cross-sectional surveys, a retrospective cohort study, a prospective case series and a prospective randomised control trial.</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence </strong></p> <p>Weak</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>It would appear that in the United Kingdom the incidence of non-AB transfusion reactions is low.&nbsp; A single study suggests that cross-matching may result in a greater improvement in haematocrit, but this is unlikely to be clinically significant. There is evidence to support the hypothesis that non-AB antigens (for example the Mik antigen) differ with geographic distribution.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>Based on the information available it is it is challenging to establish a meaningful clinical conclusion on which to base a recommendation.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-05-06T15:51:23+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Ben Safrany, Sophie Adamantos https://veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/255 Healing of equine heel bulb lacerations: Evidence behind casting compared to bandaging alone 2020-04-03T10:39:05+00:00 Julia Dubuc julia.dubuc@nottingham.ac.uk Jonny Ruiz jonnyruiz777@gmail.com <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>In horses with heel bulb lacerations, does casting the distal limb compared to bandaging result in increased speed of healing and functional outcome?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong><strong>Category of research question</strong></strong></p> <p>Treatment</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>A single retrospective study was found to be relevant to the topic along with one case report and two case series, including one tutorial article</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence</strong></p> <p>The majority of the current recommendations come from expert opinions, making the level of evidence low</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>There are currently insufficient data to compare the effect of foot/slipper casts versus bandaging alone on the rate of healing of equine heel bulb lacerations</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>Based on the information from these three publications, it is not possible to recommend the use of a foot cast over a bandage alone at this time</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-04-03T10:09:26+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Julia Dubuc, Jonny Ruiz https://veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/283 Clinical reasoning in veterinary practice 2020-05-21T12:32:33+00:00 Claire Elaine Kirsty Vinten clairevinten@outlook.com <p>Clinical reasoning is the process by which veterinary surgeons integrate a multitude of clinical and contextual factors to make decisions about the diagnoses, treatment options and prognoses of their patients. The brain utilises two methods to achieve this: type one and type two reasoning. Type one relies on shortcuts such as pattern-recognition and heuristics to deduce answers without involving working memory. Type two uses working memory to deliberately compute logical analyses. Both reasoning methods have sources of errors, and research has shown that diagnostic accuracy is increased when they are used together when problem-solving. Despite this, it appears unlikely that clinical reasoning ‘skill’ can be improved; instead, the most effective way to improve reasoning performance experimentally appears to be by increasing and rearranging knowledge. As yet, there is no evidence that overall clinical reasoning error can be reduced in practice.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-05-21T11:48:05+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Claire Elaine Kirsty Vinten https://veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/289 How and why you should segment veterinary markets 2020-04-28T15:24:17+00:00 Joseph Hill joe.hill@me.com <p>Veterinary markets are traditionally split into three main species related categories. For a business to compete effectively, a greater understanding of the relevant markets and client expectations are required. Segmenting markets into defined sections allows a business to gain a comprehensive insight into where it currently operates and where it needs to position itself in the future.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-04-28T15:20:24+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Joseph Hill https://veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/287 A critical appraisal of the literature exploring the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbosacral stenosis in dogs 2020-04-17T15:28:12+00:00 Sara Silva sara_silva7@hotmail.com L. Miguel Carreira miguelcarreira@fmv.ulisboa.pt Telmo Nunes tnunes@fmv.ulisboa.pt François Saulnier-Troff fsaulniervet@gmail.com <p><strong>Objective:</strong>&nbsp;To critically appraise the literature exploring the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbosacral stenosis in dogs.</p> <p><strong>Background:</strong>&nbsp;Several surgical procedures to treat degenerative lumbosacral stenosis (DLSS) in the dog have been reported, however, definitive criteria for surgical technique preference are currently lacking (1).</p> <p><strong>Evidentiary value and methods:</strong>&nbsp;A critical appraisal tool that examined the conduct and reporting of studies on the results of surgical treatment of DLSS was designed and, after a systematic search and screening of the literature, a critical appraisal was performed in 20 papers.</p> <p><strong>Results:</strong>&nbsp;Results showed that 18/20 studies included did not clearly report inclusion and exclusion criteria and in 14/20 it was unclear whether consecutive inclusion of participants was applied. 19/20 studies reported age, breed, and sex of the participants, and 13/20 did not report duration and prevalence of clinical signs. In 13/20 studies, it was considered that the condition was not measured in a standard and reliable way. Objective outcome measures were used in 7/20 studies.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion and application:</strong>&nbsp;The results demonstrate that there is room for improvement in the conduct and reporting quality of case series so that rigorous data can be generated and analysed, to inform research design, guide clinical practice, and improve veterinary healthcare delivery.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><br><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-04-17T14:22:50+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Sara Silva, L. Miguel Carreira, Telmo Nunes, François Saulnier-Troff https://veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/343 The missing link between practice and research 2020-04-29T22:06:20+00:00 Peter Cockcroft p.cockcroft@surrey.ac.uk <p>The&nbsp;<em>Veterinary Evidence</em>&nbsp;Journal will now provide an&nbsp;<a href="https://veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/Strength-of-evidence">annual list of Knowledge Summaries</a>&nbsp;where the strength of evidence to answer the question in the primary literature is weak or non-existent. This will provide the veterinary research community with topics that have been identified as requiring further high-quality research to increase the strength of evidence.</p> <p>To read the Editorial see Full Text.</p> <p><br><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"></p> 2020-04-29T10:20:16+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Peter Cockcroft