Clinical, laboratory and imaging features of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop a critical appraisal (CA) tool that addressed study design and reporting quality as well as the risk of bias in cross-sectional studies (CSSs). In addition, the aim was to produce a help document to guide the non-expert user through the tool.

Design: An initial scoping review of the published literature and key epidemiological texts was undertaken prior to the formation of a Delphi panel to establish key components for a CA tool for CSSs. A consensus of 80% was required from the Delphi panel for any component to be included in the final tool.

Results: An initial list of 39 components was identified through examination of existing resources. An international Delphi panel of 18 medical and veterinary experts was established. After 3 rounds of the Delphi process, the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS tool) was developed by consensus and consisted of 20 components. A detailed explanatory document was also developed with the tool, giving expanded explanation of each question and providing simple interpretations and examples of the epidemiological concepts being examined in each question to aid non-expert users.

Conclusions: CA of the literature is a vital step in evidence synthesis and therefore evidence-based decision-making in a number of different disciplines. The AXIS tool is therefore unique and was developed in a way that it can be used across disciplines to aid the inclusion of CSSs in systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical decision-making.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/6/12/e011458.full.pdf

Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)

Interviewing in Qualitative Research

Icmje

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment is an important step before study initiation usage. Therefore, accurately judging study type is the first priority, and the choosing proper tool is also important. In this review, we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial (including individual and cluster), animal study, non-randomized interventional studies (including follow-up study, controlled before-and-after study, before-after/ pre-post study, uncontrolled longitudinal study, interrupted time series study), cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study (including analytical and descriptive), observational case series and case reports, comparative effectiveness research, diagnostic study, health economic evaluation, prediction study (including predictor finding study, prediction model impact study, prognostic prediction model study), qualitative study, outcome measurement instruments (including patient - reported outcome measure development, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/ measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, and responsiveness), systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline. The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools. In one word, comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.

/pdf/methodological-quality-risk-of-bias-assessment-tools-for-17d37ggz6b.pdf

Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?

A thorough search of the literature to find the best evidence is central to the practice of evidence-based veterinary medicine. This requires knowing which databases to search to maximize journal coverage. The aim of the present study was to compare the coverage of active veterinary journals by nine bibliographic databases to inform future systematic reviews and other evidence-based searches. Coverage was assessed using lists of included journals produced by the database providers. For 121 active veterinary journals in the “Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials, Third Edition,” the percentage coverage was the highest for Scopus (98.3%) and CAB Abstracts (97.5%). For an extensive list of 1,139 journals with significant veterinary content compiled from a variety of sources, coverage was much greater in CAB Abstracts (90.2%) than in any other database, the next highest coverage being in Scopus (58.3%). The maximum coverage of the extensive journal list that could be obtained in a search without including CAB Abstracts was 69.8%. It was concluded that to maximize journal coverage and avoid missing potentially relevant evidence, CAB Abstracts should be included in any veterinary literature search.

https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jvme.1111.109R

Searching the veterinary literature: a comparison of the coverage of veterinary journals by nine bibliographic databases.

Assessment of quality of life (QoL) is an important, increasingly popular outcome measure in veterinary research and practice, particularly in dogs. In humans, QoL is commonly assessed by self-reporting and since this is not possible for animals, it is crucial that instruments designed to measure QoL are tested for reliability and validity. Using a systematic, replicable literature search strategy, the aim of this study was to find published, peer-reviewed instruments for QoL assessment in dogs and to assess the quality of these. CAB Abstracts and PubMed were searched in July 2013 using terms relevant to dogs, wellbeing and QoL. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. When instruments were not published in full, authors were contacted to obtain them. Criteria were applied to assess the quality, validity and reliability of the 52 instruments obtained. Twenty-seven additional instruments used in peer-reviewed publications were not included because they had not been fully described in the publication or were not provided by authors upon request.

Most of the instruments reviewed (48/52) were disease-specific rather than generic. Only four publications provided a definition of QoL or wellbeing. Only 11/52 instruments demonstrated evidence of assessing reliability or validity, and the quality of these instruments was variable. Many novel, unvalidated instruments have been generated and applied as clinical outcomes before it was known whether they measured QoL. This rapid review can be used to identify currently available and validated canine QoL instruments, and to assess the validity and quality of new or existing instruments.

Quality of life assessment in domestic dogs: An evidence-based rapid review.

Background: The population of dogs and cats passing through rescue shelters may be subject to compromised welfare and increased susceptibility to disease. Little information exists to describe this population, its dynamics and associated management practices. The aim of this study was to carry out a census of un-owned cats and dogs in the UK in 2010, and to document the origins, destinations, husbandry and costs associated with the care of these animals. Results: A sampling frame was constructed by searching the databases of publicly registered charities for England, Scotland and Wales, registers of breed rescues, and by internet searches of animal welfare websites. Overall, 2,352 contacts for 1,380 organisations were identified. All were sent a postal questionnaire asking for data on the number of dogs and cats housed, their origins and eventual outcomes, and details of husbandry between January 1 st and December 31 st 2010. For those which were registered charities (595), financial records were also obtained. A response rate of 38.8% was obtained. Overall, in 2010, 89,571 dogs and 156,826 cats entered the care of the participating organisations. Approximately half of these animals were relinquished by their owners. Other origins included being found as strays or confiscated for welfare purposes. Seventy-five per cent of dogs and 77.1% of cats were rehomed. The next most common outcome was euthanasia, accounting for 10.4% of dogs and 13.2% cats. For dogs and cats, 44.3% and 62% of participants respectively reported having a waiting list, which frequently exceeded the actual capacity of the facility. Over 19,000 people were involved in the care of these animals, on a paid or voluntary basis. Financial records were available for 519/595 (87.2%) of the registered charities, and their total expenditure in 2010 was £340 million. Conclusions: This study showed that a large number of animals become un-owned each year, which could have considerable implications for their welfare. Despite the resources expended, demand still exceeds capacity for many organisations, and a substantial number of both cats and dogs are euthanased, suggesting that further understanding of how and why these animals become un-owned is essential in order to target interventions.

/pdf/demographics-and-economic-burden-of-un-owned-cats-and-dogs-3wfx81mubn.pdf

Demographics and economic burden of un-owned cats and dogs in the UK: results of a 2010 census

The practice of evidence-based veterinary medicine involves the utilisation of scientific evidence for clinical decision making. To enable this, research topics pertinent to clinical practice need to be identified, and veterinary clinicians are best placed to do this. The main aim of this study was to describe the veterinary population, the common species and conditions veterinary clinicians nominated they saw in practice and how much information clinicians perceived was available in the literature for these. A questionnaire was distributed to all Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons registered veterinarians agreeing to be contacted for research purposes (n=14,532). A useable response rate of 33 per cent (4842/14,532) was achieved. The most commonly seen species reported by vets were dogs, cats and rabbits followed by equines and cattle. Overall, skin conditions were most commonly mentioned for small animals, musculoskeletal conditions for equines and reproduction conditions for production animals. Veterinary clinicians perceived there was a higher level of information available in the literature for conditions in dogs, cattle and equines and lower levels for rabbits and guinea pigs. The results from this study can be used to help define the research needs of the profession to aid the incorporation of evidence in veterinary practice.

/pdf/survey-of-the-uk-veterinary-profession-common-species-and-2uq7ky73mv.pdf

Rachel Dean

Papers

Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)

Searching the veterinary literature: a comparison of the coverage of veterinary journals by nine bibliographic databases.

Quality of life assessment in domestic dogs: An evidence-based rapid review.

Demographics and economic burden of un-owned cats and dogs in the UK: results of a 2010 census

Survey of the UK veterinary profession: common species and conditions nominated by veterinarians in practice