Quality of Evidence

Appraise the quality of scientific evidence in veterinary medicine

MARTIN WHITEHEAD

Why is veterinary evidence poor, and how can it be improved?

Despite the advent of evidence-based veterinary medicine, the overall quality and quantity of scientific research in the veterinary field is poor. This presentation explores the reasons behind this, including flaws in study design, performance, data analysis, reporting, and synthesis. The role of deliberately misleading research is also highlighted. Strategies for improving evidence quantity and quality are provided, together with the skills veterinarians need to understand and use scientific evidence.

KAROLINA DOMINGUES

Analysis of bibliometric trends of non-conventional therapies in the veterinary literature

RESEARCH QUESTION - Is the growing interest in non-conventional therapies (NCTs) in veterinary medicine accompanied by relevant research?
METHOD - We applied text mining algorithms to detect 17 terms related to NCTs, including acupuncture, chiropractic, essential oils, homeopathy, and osteopathy.
SAMPLE - All articles listed in PubMed up to 2020, MeSH term 'veterinary' (N= 377 556)
RESULTS - (1) Most of the veterinary literature on NCTs in the last decade refers to the use of medicinal plants, herbal extracts, and essential oils. (2) Studies mentioning acupuncture, electroacupuncture, chiropractic, and homeopathy are relatively scarce. CONCLUSION - There does not seem to be enough evidence to support the use of most non-conventional therapies in veterinary medicine.

LUÍS SARAIVA DA COSTA

Adaptation of the Evidence-Based Medicine Model to the Veterinary Context

Evidence based medicine is a movement which intends to increase quality in medicine, by advocating that clinical practice should be based on the most recent and best scientific evidence available. Acknowledging the importance of environmental factors in animal health, as well as in the relationship between pet and pet-owner, it is suggested that EBVM (Evidence Based Veterinary Medicine) may be conceived as the confluence of 4 dimensions, instead of 3, namely: individual clinical expertise; needs and expectations of the owner; use of the best external available evidence; environmental factors and their influence on pet-owner relationship.

In the suggested method, the studies are framed into six classification dimensions in which they are categorized as: primary or secondary research; individual or group based; experimental or observational; analytical or descriptive; longitudinal or non-longitudinal; study design type. Abiding by the aforementioned classification system it is also suggested an adaptation of the strength of evidence pyramid method. The suggested classification method was used in a systematic scoping review in which, evidence about gonadectomy effects in dogs and bitches was mapped from the Pubmed database. After identification and exclusion phases, 191 studies were selected for analysis. The 3 most studied themes were the musculoskeletal system, urinary tract and neoplasms. The most frequent research methods were RCT and NRCT in the experimental category and analytical full cohort studies; case-control and analytical cohort in the observational studies category.

NUNO HENRIQUE FRANCO

To learn to identify the relevance of a scientific article

In biomedicine very rarely a single scientific article can provide sufficient evidence, whether of a pathogen, a metabolic process or the effectiveness of any therapy. In this regard, researchers and clinicians should rather rely on the synthesis of evidence provided by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, the recent exponential growth of 'preprints' on alleged therapies against covid-19 (and the hasty dissemination in the media of unreliable information taken from them) has shown that the reliability of each article must also be assessed individually, in order to assess whether the minimum quality required to be included in the aforementioned summaries is met. In this presentation I will cover which elements are essential for evaluating scientific publications and knowing which ones to discard immediately and which ones meet minimum standards to deserve more attention, or at least until proven otherwise.

MANUEL MAGALHÃES SANT'ANA 

Tools to assess the credibility of a scientific publication

From an eminently practical profession that resorted to empirical approaches to its challenges, veterinary medicine is nowadays based on extensive scientific evidence that quickly reaches practitioners in the field. Part of the responsibility for this evolution is due to the technological revolution, namely the open access scientific publication model (Open-Access, OA). The brutal expansion of the OA model brought with it a phenomenon that, despite existing in the past, remained limited to some marginal academic circles: false scientific or predatory publications. With this presentation, we will present tools for the veterinarian to distinguish a scientific journal from a predatory journal and know how to assess the credibility of a scientific publication.

Financial Support

EVIEDVET é financiado por fundos nacionais através da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., no âmbito do projeto PTDC/CED-EDG/0187/2020