Omid Nekouei, S. St-Hilaire, Pak Chun Hui, K. Chan, I. Chan, Sum Yuet Lorraine Ngan, Y. Chan, Ka Po Chung, S. Hong, Hiu Man Chan, Hoi Lam Iris Or, Fong Yuen Chan, Hei Tung Yim, V. Barrs
PICO question In cats with feline infectious peritonitis (FIP), does treatment with the nucleoside analogue GS-441524 or the protease inhibitor GC376, compared to supportive measures alone, lead to longer survival times? Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed Five studies, including four uncontrolled interventional studies and one case-series were critically reviewed Strength of evidence Moderate Outcomes reported The reviewed studies collectively provide moderate evidence in support of the application of GS-441524 or GC376 to extend the survival time of cats suffering from feline infectious peritonitis Conclusion While these antiviral drugs are considered the most likely options for FIP treatment, more robust evidence should be obtained through well-designed randomised controlled trials to verify the observed positive effects in treating various forms of the disease and the potential long-term side effects. However, the ethical dilemmas of conducting double blinded placebo-controlled trials, which by necessity include untreated cats with an invariably fatal disease are recognised How to apply this evidence in practice 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. 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.
{"title":"Potential therapeutic effects of GS-441524 and GC376 in cats with feline infectious peritonitis","authors":"Omid Nekouei, S. St-Hilaire, Pak Chun Hui, K. Chan, I. Chan, Sum Yuet Lorraine Ngan, Y. Chan, Ka Po Chung, S. Hong, Hiu Man Chan, Hoi Lam Iris Or, Fong Yuen Chan, Hei Tung Yim, V. Barrs","doi":"10.18849/ve.v7i1.522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v7i1.522","url":null,"abstract":"PICO question \u0000In cats with feline infectious peritonitis (FIP), does treatment with the nucleoside analogue GS-441524 or the protease inhibitor GC376, compared to supportive measures alone, lead to longer survival times? \u0000 \u0000Clinical bottom line \u0000Category of research question \u0000Treatment \u0000The number and type of study designs reviewed \u0000Five studies, including four uncontrolled interventional studies and one case-series were critically reviewed \u0000Strength of evidence \u0000Moderate \u0000Outcomes reported \u0000The reviewed studies collectively provide moderate evidence in support of the application of GS-441524 or GC376 to extend the survival time of cats suffering from feline infectious peritonitis \u0000Conclusion \u0000While these antiviral drugs are considered the most likely options for FIP treatment, more robust evidence should be obtained through well-designed randomised controlled trials to verify the observed positive effects in treating various forms of the disease and the potential long-term side effects. However, the ethical dilemmas of conducting double blinded placebo-controlled trials, which by necessity include untreated cats with an invariably fatal disease are recognised \u0000 \u0000How to apply this evidence in practice \u0000The 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. \u0000Knowledge 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. \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125121384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
PICO question In cats with feline interstitial cystitis, which therapy brings a faster resolution of clinical signs: meloxicam or prednisolone? Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed Two papers evaluated as relevant to the PICO question were critically reviewed. Both were double-blinded randomised controlled trials. One paper not related to the PICO question, a single-blinded randomised controlled trial, was also reviewed as it is touched upon in the discussion section Strength of evidence Appraisal of the literature reveals weak evidence that meloxicam and prednisolone are of equivalent effectiveness when treating feline interstitial cystitis, also known as feline idiopathic cystitis (FIC) Outcomes reported There is no statistically significant difference in the reduction of clinical signs when meloxicam is compared with a placebo for the treatment of FIC. There is no statistically significant difference in reduction of clinical signs when prednisolone is compared with a placebo for the treatment of FIC. No studies were available for review which directly compared meloxicam against prednisolone as treatment options for FIC Conclusion In cats with FIC, insufficient evidence exists to truly conclude whether meloxicam or prednisolone is the most efficacious therapy for the reduction of clinical signs. Two double-blinded randomised controlled trials were evaluated – one compared the efficacy of meloxicam against a placebo; the other compared the efficacy of prednisolone against a placebo. Neither study found a statistically significant difference between the assessed treatment modality and the placebo used in reducing the clinical signs of FIC. As such, weak evidence exists that there is no significant difference between the use of meloxicam and a placebo, and prednisolone and a placebo in the reduction of clinical signs of FIC. Additionally, it could therefore be hypothesised that no significant difference exists in the reduction of clinical signs when comparing meloxicam against prednisolone as treatments for FIC however, no study was discoverable which was able to substantiate this claim How to apply this evidence in practice 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. 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.
{"title":"In cats which treatment, meloxicam or prednisolone, most quickly reduces clinical signs of feline interstitial cystitis?","authors":"Thomas Smith-Uchotski","doi":"10.18849/ve.v7i1.346","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v7i1.346","url":null,"abstract":"PICO question \u0000In cats with feline interstitial cystitis, which therapy brings a faster resolution of clinical signs: meloxicam or prednisolone? \u0000 \u0000Clinical bottom line \u0000Category of research question \u0000Treatment \u0000The number and type of study designs reviewed \u0000Two papers evaluated as relevant to the PICO question were critically reviewed. Both were double-blinded randomised controlled trials. \u0000One paper not related to the PICO question, a single-blinded randomised controlled trial, was also reviewed as it is touched upon in the discussion section \u0000Strength of evidence \u0000Appraisal of the literature reveals weak evidence that meloxicam and prednisolone are of equivalent effectiveness when treating feline interstitial cystitis, also known as feline idiopathic cystitis (FIC) \u0000Outcomes reported \u0000There is no statistically significant difference in the reduction of clinical signs when meloxicam is compared with a placebo for the treatment of FIC. There is no statistically significant difference in reduction of clinical signs when prednisolone is compared with a placebo for the treatment of FIC. No studies were available for review which directly compared meloxicam against prednisolone as treatment options for FIC \u0000Conclusion \u0000In cats with FIC, insufficient evidence exists to truly conclude whether meloxicam or prednisolone is the most efficacious therapy for the reduction of clinical signs. Two double-blinded randomised controlled trials were evaluated – one compared the efficacy of meloxicam against a placebo; the other compared the efficacy of prednisolone against a placebo. Neither study found a statistically significant difference between the assessed treatment modality and the placebo used in reducing the clinical signs of FIC. As such, weak evidence exists that there is no significant difference between the use of meloxicam and a placebo, and prednisolone and a placebo in the reduction of clinical signs of FIC. Additionally, it could therefore be hypothesised that no significant difference exists in the reduction of clinical signs when comparing meloxicam against prednisolone as treatments for FIC however, no study was discoverable which was able to substantiate this claim \u0000 \u0000How to apply this evidence in practice \u0000The 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. \u0000Knowledge 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. \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"386 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115480970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As 2021 draws to a close I suspect few of us could have foreseen the past year. In the early part of the year, as COVID-19 vaccination gathered pace, like many, I was hopeful that we would be seeing coronavirus in the rear-view mirror by the end of the year ― only then to find ourselves in the midst of another wave of cases. Despite all the headwinds of coronavirus and the impact of working from home, Veterinary Evidence has continued to flourish, publishing more papers this year than last. Published papers have covered an amazing range of different topics, illustrating not just the wide diversity of questions that are being answered, but the depth and breadth of the team of reviewers that give their time to extend veterinary knowledge, supported by a dedicated group of assistant editors and staff at the journal who coordinate activity, ensure standards, and continue to develop the journal. As a journal, Veterinary Evidence is maturing with two of the main focuses this year being to further develop our internal journal systems ― which has allowed us to apply for membership of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) ― and work towards improving the discoverability and accessibility of our published papers. In order to achieve this, the team is working hard to redesign our current website and fulfil the criteria for inclusion in other citation databases beyond CAB Abstracts, such as Medline. We have been delighted this year to expand our Editorial Board ensuring, as the journal grows, we have the necessary range of skills on the Board to maintain high quality, effective reviews delivered in a timely manner. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our reviewers and everyone who has served on the Board this year for their tireless efforts on behalf of Veterinary Evidence – without your support the journal could not exist. This year the Board has had three online meetings, more than ever before, which have been essential in helping develop the strategy for Veterinary Evidence over the coming years, expanding the influence and reach of the journal with various strategic initiatives. Other key areas have included developing our policy on standard terminology, looking at the best ways to ensure Knowledge Summaries remain current and working towards making editorial decisions as consistent as possible. And finally… a huge thank you to everyone who works for and supports Veterinary Evidence, wishing you all a safe and productive 2022.
{"title":"Thank you to our 2021 reviewers","authors":"K. Sturgess","doi":"10.18849/ve.v7i1.562","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v7i1.562","url":null,"abstract":"As 2021 draws to a close I suspect few of us could have foreseen the past year. In the early part of the year, as COVID-19 vaccination gathered pace, like many, I was hopeful that we would be seeing coronavirus in the rear-view mirror by the end of the year ― only then to find ourselves in the midst of another wave of cases. \u0000Despite all the headwinds of coronavirus and the impact of working from home, Veterinary Evidence has continued to flourish, publishing more papers this year than last. Published papers have covered an amazing range of different topics, illustrating not just the wide diversity of questions that are being answered, but the depth and breadth of the team of reviewers that give their time to extend veterinary knowledge, supported by a dedicated group of assistant editors and staff at the journal who coordinate activity, ensure standards, and continue to develop the journal. \u0000As a journal, Veterinary Evidence is maturing with two of the main focuses this year being to further develop our internal journal systems ― which has allowed us to apply for membership of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) ― and work towards improving the discoverability and accessibility of our published papers. In order to achieve this, the team is working hard to redesign our current website and fulfil the criteria for inclusion in other citation databases beyond CAB Abstracts, such as Medline. \u0000We have been delighted this year to expand our Editorial Board ensuring, as the journal grows, we have the necessary range of skills on the Board to maintain high quality, effective reviews delivered in a timely manner. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our reviewers and everyone who has served on the Board this year for their tireless efforts on behalf of Veterinary Evidence – without your support the journal could not exist. This year the Board has had three online meetings, more than ever before, which have been essential in helping develop the strategy for Veterinary Evidence over the coming years, expanding the influence and reach of the journal with various strategic initiatives. Other key areas have included developing our policy on standard terminology, looking at the best ways to ensure Knowledge Summaries remain current and working towards making editorial decisions as consistent as possible. \u0000And finally… a huge thank you to everyone who works for and supports Veterinary Evidence, wishing you all a safe and productive 2022. \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131007598","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
PICO question In horses with naturally occurring osteoarthritis, is treatment with intra-articular polyacrylamide gel more likely to reduce the severity of clinical signs associated with lameness when compared to treatment with intra-articular corticosteroid? Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed Twelve studies; four case series, three uncontrolled prospective studies, one non-blinded, non-randomised control trial, one non-blinded randomised control trial, two systematic reviews and one systematic review and meta-analysis Strength of evidence Weak Outcomes reported Studies examined: Clinical signs relating to lameness after use of corticosteroid or polyacrylamide gel to treat osteoarthritis; improvement in lameness and treatment success (including return to work in some papers) Conclusion It is not possible to recommend one treatment over the other given the absence of studies which provide direct comparison. This highlights the need for further controlled and comparative studies How to apply this evidence in practice 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. 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.
{"title":"In horses with osteoarthritis is treatment with intra-articular polyacrylamide gel more likely to reduce the severity of clinical signs associated with lameness when compared to treatment with intra-articular corticosteroid?","authors":"Constance Bowkett‐Pritchard","doi":"10.18849/ve.v7i1.413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v7i1.413","url":null,"abstract":"PICO question \u0000In horses with naturally occurring osteoarthritis, is treatment with intra-articular polyacrylamide gel more likely to reduce the severity of clinical signs associated with lameness when compared to treatment with intra-articular corticosteroid? \u0000 \u0000Clinical bottom line \u0000Category of research question \u0000Treatment \u0000The number and type of study designs reviewed \u0000Twelve studies; four case series, three uncontrolled prospective studies, one non-blinded, non-randomised control trial, one non-blinded randomised control trial, two systematic reviews and one systematic review and meta-analysis \u0000Strength of evidence \u0000Weak \u0000Outcomes reported \u0000Studies examined: Clinical signs relating to lameness after use of corticosteroid or polyacrylamide gel to treat osteoarthritis; improvement in lameness and treatment success (including return to work in some papers) \u0000Conclusion \u0000It is not possible to recommend one treatment over the other given the absence of studies which provide direct comparison. This highlights the need for further controlled and comparative studies \u0000 \u0000How to apply this evidence in practice \u0000The 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. \u0000Knowledge 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. \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124407187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
PICO question In large breed juvenile dogs with hip dysplasia and radiographic bilateral osteoarthritis, is a total hip replacement superior/inferior/or equivalent to bilateral femoral head ostectomy at reducing the severity of long-term hip pain? Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed Twelve papers were critically appraised. One paper was a systematic review. Six papers were prospective case series. Five papers were retrospective case series Strength of evidence Weak Outcomes reported Besides one systematic review, there are no other studies available that directly compare pain reduction with total hip replacement and femoral head ostectomy for the treatment of hip dysplasia in large breed juvenile dogs with radiographic evidence of secondary osteoarthritis. In one study, 12/12 (100%)of owners that responded to an owner outcome questionnaire reported no hip pain with femoral head and neck ostectomy. In this study, owners assessed pain based on activity level of the dog (running, playing, jumping, using stairs normally), gait abnormalities (only when running or after strenuous exercise), and duration of postoperative medications. In eight studies, 91–100% of cases had no hip pain with total hip replacement reported via clinical examination and/or owner outcome questionnaire Conclusion There is evidence suggesting that both total hip replacement and femoral head ostectomy may be capable of reducing long-term pain as a result of osteoarthritis, secondary to hip dysplasia, however, based on the current literature, it is challenging to say whether total hip replacement is superior to femoral head and neck ostectomy at reducing long-term hip pain. It is important to recognise that other factors considered as outcomes (i.e. range of motion, ground reaction forces, force-plate analysis, etc.) may contribute to differing outcomes overall for total hip replacement vs femoral head ostectomy, but this paper focused specifically on pain. While there is a systematic review that provides evidence supporting that total hip replacement is superior at returning dogs to normal function, evaluating return to normal function was not the focus of this Knowledge Summary How to apply this evidence in practice 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. 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.
{"title":"Are dogs with hip dysplasia in less pain after total hip replacement than femoral head ostectomy?","authors":"Erica Rehnblom, W. Gordon-Evans","doi":"10.18849/ve.v7i1.388","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v7i1.388","url":null,"abstract":"PICO question \u0000In large breed juvenile dogs with hip dysplasia and radiographic bilateral osteoarthritis, is a total hip replacement superior/inferior/or equivalent to bilateral femoral head ostectomy at reducing the severity of long-term hip pain? \u0000 \u0000Clinical bottom line \u0000Category of research question \u0000Treatment \u0000The number and type of study designs reviewed \u0000Twelve papers were critically appraised. One paper was a systematic review. Six papers were prospective case series. Five papers were retrospective case series \u0000Strength of evidence \u0000Weak \u0000Outcomes reported \u0000Besides one systematic review, there are no other studies available that directly compare pain reduction with total hip replacement and femoral head ostectomy for the treatment of hip dysplasia in large breed juvenile dogs with radiographic evidence of secondary osteoarthritis. In one study, 12/12 (100%)of owners that responded to an owner outcome questionnaire reported no hip pain with femoral head and neck ostectomy. In this study, owners assessed pain based on activity level of the dog (running, playing, jumping, using stairs normally), gait abnormalities (only when running or after strenuous exercise), and duration of postoperative medications. In eight studies, 91–100% of cases had no hip pain with total hip replacement reported via clinical examination and/or owner outcome questionnaire \u0000Conclusion \u0000There is evidence suggesting that both total hip replacement and femoral head ostectomy may be capable of reducing long-term pain as a result of osteoarthritis, secondary to hip dysplasia, however, based on the current literature, it is challenging to say whether total hip replacement is superior to femoral head and neck ostectomy at reducing long-term hip pain. It is important to recognise that other factors considered as outcomes (i.e. range of motion, ground reaction forces, force-plate analysis, etc.) may contribute to differing outcomes overall for total hip replacement vs femoral head ostectomy, but this paper focused specifically on pain. While there is a systematic review that provides evidence supporting that total hip replacement is superior at returning dogs to normal function, evaluating return to normal function was not the focus of this Knowledge Summary \u0000 \u0000How to apply this evidence in practice \u0000The 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. \u0000Knowledge 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. \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131168613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
PICO question In dogs with gastrointestinal foreign-body obstruction undergoing surgical correction, is the mortality rate in the perioperative period for those receiving resection and anastomosis higher, lower, or equivalent to those receiving an enterotomy? Clinical bottom line Category of research question Outcome The number and type of study designs reviewed Four retrospective studies were reviewed Strength of evidence Weak Outcomes reported It would appear that the mortality rate for resection and anastomosis for the purpose of foreign-body removal is higher than that of enterotomies performed for the same reason Conclusion There is insufficient evidence directly comparing enterotomies with resection and anastomoses in foreign-body obstructions to definitively state that the mortality rate is higher among resection and anastomosis procedures How to apply this evidence in practice 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. 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.
{"title":"Mortality rate comparison of enterotomy and resection and anastomosis (enterectomy) in dogs with foreign-body obstructions","authors":"Hillary Mikulak, W. Gordon-Evans","doi":"10.18849/ve.v6i4.390","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v6i4.390","url":null,"abstract":"PICO question \u0000In dogs with gastrointestinal foreign-body obstruction undergoing surgical correction, is the mortality rate in the perioperative period for those receiving resection and anastomosis higher, lower, or equivalent to those receiving an enterotomy? \u0000 \u0000Clinical bottom line \u0000Category of research question \u0000Outcome \u0000The number and type of study designs reviewed \u0000Four retrospective studies were reviewed \u0000Strength of evidence \u0000Weak \u0000Outcomes reported \u0000It would appear that the mortality rate for resection and anastomosis for the purpose of foreign-body removal is higher than that of enterotomies performed for the same reason \u0000Conclusion \u0000There is insufficient evidence directly comparing enterotomies with resection and anastomoses in foreign-body obstructions to definitively state that the mortality rate is higher among resection and anastomosis procedures \u0000 \u0000How to apply this evidence in practice \u0000The 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. \u0000Knowledge 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. \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116483626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
PICO question Among homeless individuals, does owning a pet improve their mental health? Clinical bottom line Category of research question Qualitative assessment The number and type of study designs reviewed Fifteen (eight qualitative assessments, two cross-sectional quantitative studies, three qualitative/cross-sectional studies, and two scoping/systematic reviews) Strength of evidence Moderate Outcomes reported Homeless individuals who own pets reported improvement in their mental health status by having fewer symptoms of depression, reduced feelings of loneliness, reduced stress, increased feelings of happiness, and decreased intentions of suicide, all as a result of owning a pet. However, homeless individuals who own pets may suffer a decrease in mental health due to the loss or anticipated loss of their pet Conclusion It is concluded among qualitative and cross-sectional studies that there are clearly multiple benefits to mental health associated with pet ownership among homeless individuals. However, the lack of quantitative, longitudinal, and/or experimental studies in this topic prevents a causative relationship from being established and caution should be exercised when interpreting the results as pet ownership causing an improvement in mental health How to apply this evidence in practice 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. 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.
{"title":"Among homeless individuals, does owning a pet improve their mental health?","authors":"K. Conway","doi":"10.18849/ve.v6i4.447","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v6i4.447","url":null,"abstract":"PICO question \u0000Among homeless individuals, does owning a pet improve their mental health? \u0000 \u0000Clinical bottom line \u0000Category of research question \u0000Qualitative assessment \u0000The number and type of study designs reviewed \u0000Fifteen (eight qualitative assessments, two cross-sectional quantitative studies, three qualitative/cross-sectional studies, and two scoping/systematic reviews) \u0000Strength of evidence \u0000Moderate \u0000Outcomes reported \u0000Homeless individuals who own pets reported improvement in their mental health status by having fewer symptoms of depression, reduced feelings of loneliness, reduced stress, increased feelings of happiness, and decreased intentions of suicide, all as a result of owning a pet. \u0000However, homeless individuals who own pets may suffer a decrease in mental health due to the loss or anticipated loss of their pet \u0000Conclusion \u0000It is concluded among qualitative and cross-sectional studies that there are clearly multiple benefits to mental health associated with pet ownership among homeless individuals. However, the lack of quantitative, longitudinal, and/or experimental studies in this topic prevents a causative relationship from being established and caution should be exercised when interpreting the results as pet ownership causing an improvement in mental health \u0000 \u0000How to apply this evidence in practice \u0000The 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. \u0000Knowledge 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. \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"168 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131859754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
PICO question In dogs that have undergone a complete splenectomy, does performing a concurrent gastropexy decrease the risk of future gastric dilatation-volvulus (GDV) development when compared to not performing a concurrent gastropexy? Clinical bottom line Category of research question Risk The number and type of study designs reviewed Five papers were critically reviewed which included one retrospective case series, one retrospective case-control study, and three combined retrospective cohort and cross-sectional survey studies Strength of evidence Weak Outcomes reported In dogs that have had a complete splenectomy, there is no conclusive evidence that prophylactic gastropexy decreases the risk of lifetime GDV development Conclusion Based on the limited information available, it is difficult to conclude if prophylactic gastropexy should be recommended routinely at the time of complete splenectomy How to apply this evidence in practice 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. 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.
{"title":"Current evidence supporting simultaneous prophylactic gastropexy in canine patients undergoing complete splenectomy","authors":"Olivia Harris","doi":"10.18849/ve.v6i4.443","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v6i4.443","url":null,"abstract":"PICO question \u0000In dogs that have undergone a complete splenectomy, does performing a concurrent gastropexy decrease the risk of future gastric dilatation-volvulus (GDV) development when compared to not performing a concurrent gastropexy? \u0000 \u0000Clinical bottom line \u0000Category of research question \u0000Risk \u0000The number and type of study designs reviewed \u0000Five papers were critically reviewed which included one retrospective case series, one retrospective case-control study, and three combined retrospective cohort and cross-sectional survey studies \u0000Strength of evidence \u0000Weak \u0000Outcomes reported \u0000In dogs that have had a complete splenectomy, there is no conclusive evidence that prophylactic gastropexy decreases the risk of lifetime GDV development \u0000Conclusion \u0000Based on the limited information available, it is difficult to conclude if prophylactic gastropexy should be recommended routinely at the time of complete splenectomy \u0000 \u0000How to apply this evidence in practice \u0000The 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. \u0000Knowledge 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. \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122728010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
PICO question In adult, non-geriatric, dogs with acute onset (<7 days duration) uncomplicated diarrhoea does the addition of metronidazole to a supportive care protocol such as dietary modification or probiotics (excluding other antimicrobials) reduce the time to resolution of diarrhoea compared to supportive care protocols alone? Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed Four studies were included in this appraisal. Two prospective, double blinded, placebo controlled clinical trials, one prospective treatment trial and one retrospective longitudinal observational study Strength of evidence Weak Outcomes reported One study found a shortened duration of clinical signs (by 1.5 days; p = 0.04) in the metronidazole treated group compared to control. However, a separate study found no significant difference between control and metronidazole groups in the regards to resolution of clinical signs. One study demonstrated a long standing (>28 day) negative impact of metronidazole treatment on gut microbiome with no difference in time to resolution of clinical signs when compared with faecal matter transplant Conclusion The current evidence for the superiority of metronidazole compared to supportive treatment alone is weak and at this time there is no evidence-based rationale for its use in cases of uncomplicated, acute, canine diarrhoea. Furthermore, the negative implications of metronidazole on the intestinal microbiome have been found to be long standing (>28 days as a minimum) and should not be discounted by the prescribing clinician How to apply this evidence in practice 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. 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.
{"title":"The use of metronidazole in adult dogs with acute onset, uncomplicated, diarrhoea","authors":"E. Rogers-Smith","doi":"10.18849/ve.v6i4.445","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v6i4.445","url":null,"abstract":"PICO question \u0000In adult, non-geriatric, dogs with acute onset (<7 days duration) uncomplicated diarrhoea does the addition of metronidazole to a supportive care protocol such as dietary modification or probiotics (excluding other antimicrobials) reduce the time to resolution of diarrhoea compared to supportive care protocols alone? \u0000 \u0000Clinical bottom line \u0000Category of research question \u0000Treatment \u0000The number and type of study designs reviewed \u0000Four studies were included in this appraisal. Two prospective, double blinded, placebo controlled clinical trials, one prospective treatment trial and one retrospective longitudinal observational study \u0000Strength of evidence \u0000Weak \u0000Outcomes reported \u0000One study found a shortened duration of clinical signs (by 1.5 days; p = 0.04) in the metronidazole treated group compared to control. However, a separate study found no significant difference between control and metronidazole groups in the regards to resolution of clinical signs. \u0000One study demonstrated a long standing (>28 day) negative impact of metronidazole treatment on gut microbiome with no difference in time to resolution of clinical signs when compared with faecal matter transplant \u0000Conclusion \u0000The current evidence for the superiority of metronidazole compared to supportive treatment alone is weak and at this time there is no evidence-based rationale for its use in cases of uncomplicated, acute, canine diarrhoea. Furthermore, the negative implications of metronidazole on the intestinal microbiome have been found to be long standing (>28 days as a minimum) and should not be discounted by the prescribing clinician \u0000 \u0000How to apply this evidence in practice \u0000The 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. \u0000Knowledge 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. \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130927840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Objective: The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore veterinary professionals’ use and perceptions of grief resources and services to support companion animal caregivers following companion animal euthanasia. Background: The loss of a companion animal can be a source of great sorrow and grief. Like human loss, many companion animal caregivers may seek out and benefit from grief resources, of which veterinary professionals are often important providers. Yet, little is known about how, when or for what reasons veterinary professionals provide these resources. Methods: A qualitative study consisting of group and individual interviews involving 38 veterinary professionals and staff from 10 veterinary hospitals in Ontario, Canada was conducted. Verbatim transcripts were evaluated using inductive thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes. Results: Results indicated that typically resources were only provided if a caregiver requested information, or when veterinary professionals recognised that the caregiver may benefit from these resources. To assess a caregiver’s need, participants reported considering their age, the strength of the human-animal bond, their previous and ongoing life circumstances, and their emotional state. Several barriers limiting veterinary professionals’ use of grief resources were also described including perceptions that few adequate resources existed and a lack of knowledge of existing or new resources. Conclusion: Overall, findings suggest that there are substantial opportunities to improve and embed a provision of grief resources within the veterinary profession. There is a need to develop adequate resources to meet caregivers’ supportive needs and implement these resources within the greater veterinary profession.
{"title":"Exploring how veterinary professionals perceive and use grief support resources to support companion animal caregivers in Ontario, Canada","authors":"Alisha R Matte, D. Khosa, M. Meehan","doi":"10.18849/ve.v6i4.430","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v6i4.430","url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore veterinary professionals’ use and perceptions of grief resources and services to support companion animal caregivers following companion animal euthanasia. \u0000Background: The loss of a companion animal can be a source of great sorrow and grief. Like human loss, many companion animal caregivers may seek out and benefit from grief resources, of which veterinary professionals are often important providers. Yet, little is known about how, when or for what reasons veterinary professionals provide these resources. \u0000Methods: A qualitative study consisting of group and individual interviews involving 38 veterinary professionals and staff from 10 veterinary hospitals in Ontario, Canada was conducted. Verbatim transcripts were evaluated using inductive thematic analysis to identify themes and subthemes. \u0000Results: Results indicated that typically resources were only provided if a caregiver requested information, or when veterinary professionals recognised that the caregiver may benefit from these resources. To assess a caregiver’s need, participants reported considering their age, the strength of the human-animal bond, their previous and ongoing life circumstances, and their emotional state. Several barriers limiting veterinary professionals’ use of grief resources were also described including perceptions that few adequate resources existed and a lack of knowledge of existing or new resources. \u0000Conclusion: Overall, findings suggest that there are substantial opportunities to improve and embed a provision of grief resources within the veterinary profession. There is a need to develop adequate resources to meet caregivers’ supportive needs and implement these resources within the greater veterinary profession. \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127033472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：