Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examine preventive antibiotic uses and management practices designed to prevent disease in livestock.

IF 4.3 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES Animal Health Research Reviews Pub Date : 2019-12-01 DOI:10.1017/S146625231900029X
Rachael Vriezen, Jan M Sargeant, Ellen Vriezen, Charlotte B Winder, Annette M O'Connor
{"title":"Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examine preventive antibiotic uses and management practices designed to prevent disease in livestock.","authors":"Rachael Vriezen,&nbsp;Jan M Sargeant,&nbsp;Ellen Vriezen,&nbsp;Charlotte B Winder,&nbsp;Annette M O'Connor","doi":"10.1017/S146625231900029X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To implement effective stewardship in food animal production, it is essential that producers and veterinarians are aware of preventive interventions to reduce illness in livestock. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) provide transparent, replicable, and quality-assessed overviews. At present, it is unknown how many SR/MA evaluate preventive antibiotic use or management practices aimed at reducing disease risk in animal agriculture. Further, the quality of existing reviews is unknown. Our aim was to identify reviews investigating these topics and to provide an assessment of their quality. Thirty-eight relevant reviews were identified. Quality assessment was based on the AMSTAR 2 framework for the critical appraisal of systematic reviews. The quality of most of the reviews captured was classified as critically low (84.2%, n = 32/38), and only a small percentage of the evaluated reviews did not contain critical weaknesses (7.9%, n = 3/38). Particularly, a small number of reviews reported the development of an a priori protocol (15.8%, n = 6/38), and few reviews stated that key review steps were conducted in duplicate (study selection/screening: 26.3%, n = 10/38; data extraction: 15.8%, n = 6/38). The development of high-quality reviews summarizing evidence on approaches to antibiotic reduction is essential, and thus greater adherence to quality conduct guidelines for synthesis research is crucial.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"305-318"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S146625231900029X","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Health Research Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S146625231900029X","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: 6

Abstract

To implement effective stewardship in food animal production, it is essential that producers and veterinarians are aware of preventive interventions to reduce illness in livestock. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) provide transparent, replicable, and quality-assessed overviews. At present, it is unknown how many SR/MA evaluate preventive antibiotic use or management practices aimed at reducing disease risk in animal agriculture. Further, the quality of existing reviews is unknown. Our aim was to identify reviews investigating these topics and to provide an assessment of their quality. Thirty-eight relevant reviews were identified. Quality assessment was based on the AMSTAR 2 framework for the critical appraisal of systematic reviews. The quality of most of the reviews captured was classified as critically low (84.2%, n = 32/38), and only a small percentage of the evaluated reviews did not contain critical weaknesses (7.9%, n = 3/38). Particularly, a small number of reviews reported the development of an a priori protocol (15.8%, n = 6/38), and few reviews stated that key review steps were conducted in duplicate (study selection/screening: 26.3%, n = 10/38; data extraction: 15.8%, n = 6/38). The development of high-quality reviews summarizing evidence on approaches to antibiotic reduction is essential, and thus greater adherence to quality conduct guidelines for synthesis research is crucial.

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
对检查预防性抗生素使用和旨在预防牲畜疾病的管理做法的系统评价和荟萃分析进行质量评估。
为了在食用动物生产中实施有效的管理,生产者和兽医必须了解预防干预措施,以减少牲畜的疾病。系统评价和荟萃分析(SR/MA)提供透明、可复制和质量评估的概述。目前,尚不清楚有多少SR/MA评估旨在降低动物农业疾病风险的预防性抗生素使用或管理做法。此外,现有评论的质量是未知的。我们的目的是确定调查这些主题的综述,并对其质量进行评估。确定了38项相关审查。质量评估基于AMSTAR 2框架,用于系统审查的关键评估。捕获的大多数评论的质量被归类为极低(84.2%,n = 32/38),并且只有一小部分被评估的评论不包含关键弱点(7.9%,n = 3/38)。特别是,少数综述报告了先验方案的制定(15.8%,n = 6/38),少数综述指出关键的综述步骤是重复进行的(研究选择/筛选:26.3%,n = 10/38;数据提取率:15.8%,n = 6/38)。开发高质量的综述,总结减少抗生素方法的证据是必不可少的,因此更严格地遵守合成研究的高质量行为准则是至关重要的。
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