Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in animal health, performance, and on-farm food safety: a scoping review.

IF 4.3 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES Animal Health Research Reviews Pub Date : 2019-12-01 DOI:10.1017/S1466252319000197
Rachael Vriezen, Jan M Sargeant, Ellen Vriezen, Mark Reist, Charlotte B Winder, Annette M O'Connor
{"title":"Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in animal health, performance, and on-farm food safety: a scoping review.","authors":"Rachael Vriezen,&nbsp;Jan M Sargeant,&nbsp;Ellen Vriezen,&nbsp;Mark Reist,&nbsp;Charlotte B Winder,&nbsp;Annette M O'Connor","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are used to summarize and interpret evidence for clinical decision-making in human health. The extent of the application of these methods in veterinary medicine and animal agriculture is unknown. The goal of this scoping study was to ascertain trends in the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining animal health, animal performance, and on-farm food safety. Online databases were searched for reviews published between 1993 and 2018 that focused on relevant outcomes in domestic livestock, companion animals, or wildlife species. In total 1787 titles and abstracts underwent data characterization. Dairy cattle, fish, and pigs were the most common target commodity groups. Few articles investigated both health and performance outcomes (only health: n = 418; only performance: n = 701; both health and performance: n = 103). Most of the reviews (67.6%, n = 1208/1787) described a meta-analysis but did not state in the title or abstract that a systematic review was also conducted, which is potentially problematic. Adherence to reporting guidelines is recommended for all systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For research areas with many reviews, an evidence repository is recommended. For less well-reviewed areas, additional investigation may be necessary to identify the reasons for the lack of synthesis research.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"116-127"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000197","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Health Research Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000197","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are used to summarize and interpret evidence for clinical decision-making in human health. The extent of the application of these methods in veterinary medicine and animal agriculture is unknown. The goal of this scoping study was to ascertain trends in the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining animal health, animal performance, and on-farm food safety. Online databases were searched for reviews published between 1993 and 2018 that focused on relevant outcomes in domestic livestock, companion animals, or wildlife species. In total 1787 titles and abstracts underwent data characterization. Dairy cattle, fish, and pigs were the most common target commodity groups. Few articles investigated both health and performance outcomes (only health: n = 418; only performance: n = 701; both health and performance: n = 103). Most of the reviews (67.6%, n = 1208/1787) described a meta-analysis but did not state in the title or abstract that a systematic review was also conducted, which is potentially problematic. Adherence to reporting guidelines is recommended for all systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For research areas with many reviews, an evidence repository is recommended. For less well-reviewed areas, additional investigation may be necessary to identify the reasons for the lack of synthesis research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
动物健康、生产性能和农场食品安全的系统评价和荟萃分析:范围审查。
系统评价和荟萃分析用于总结和解释人类健康临床决策的证据。这些方法在兽医学和畜牧业中的应用程度尚不清楚。本范围研究的目的是确定研究动物健康、动物生产性能和农场食品安全的系统综述和荟萃分析的出版趋势。在线数据库中检索了1993年至2018年间发表的关于家畜、伴侣动物或野生动物物种相关结果的综述。共有1787篇标题和摘要进行了数据表征。奶牛、鱼和猪是最常见的目标商品群体。很少有文章同时调查健康和绩效结果(只有健康:n = 418;仅性能:n = 701;健康和性能:n = 103)。大多数综述(67.6%,n = 1208/1787)描述了荟萃分析,但没有在标题或摘要中说明也进行了系统评价,这是潜在的问题。建议所有系统评价和荟萃分析都遵循报告指南。对于有许多评论的研究领域,建议建立一个证据库。对于评价较差的领域,可能需要进行额外的调查,以确定缺乏合成研究的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Animal Health Research Reviews
Animal Health Research Reviews VETERINARY SCIENCES-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: Animal Health Research Reviews provides an international forum for the publication of reviews and commentaries on all aspects of animal health. Papers include in-depth analyses and broader overviews of all facets of health and science in both domestic and wild animals. Major subject areas include physiology and pharmacology, parasitology, bacteriology, food and environmental safety, epidemiology and virology. The journal is of interest to researchers involved in animal health, parasitologists, food safety experts and academics interested in all aspects of animal production and welfare.
期刊最新文献
Recent advances in the use of bacterial probiotics in animal production Alternatives to antibiotics in veterinary medicine: considerations for the management of Johne's disease. Essential oils and essential oil compounds in animal production as antimicrobials and anthelmintics: an updated review. Evidence that ectoparasites influence the hematological parameters of the host: a systematic review. Applications of butyric acid in poultry production: the dynamics of gut health, performance, nutrient utilization, egg quality, and osteoporosis - CORRIGENDUM.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1