What's in a Name? The Incorrect Use of Case Series as a Study Design Label in Studies Involving Dogs and Cats

Scoping review exploring the evidence base on Vitis vinifera toxicity in dogs after ingestion: Clinical effects, treatments and types of V. vinifera

BACKGROUND

Treatment of Vitis vinifera fruit (VVF) ingestion can be challenging due to no clear toxic dose, signalment factors and variable clinical signs. Current treatment guidance is generalised: decontamination, aggressive fluid therapy, monitoring and/or treatment of renal dysfunction. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of scientific evidence regarding the ingestion of VVF in dogs. Three primary areas were reviewed: VVF types ingested, clinical signs reported and treatments given. The inclusion criterion was any paper presenting data on clinical signs or treatments of dogs that had ingested VVF (unprocessed VVF only).

METHODS

The following databases were searched: CAB Abstracts, Medline, Embase and Scopus. No limits were placed on language or date. The review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-four papers were identified. A wide range of VVF types were ingested, but the toxic dose was difficult to ascertain. The most commonly reported signs were gastrointestinal, renal, neurological and haematological. Treatment commonly consisted of fluid therapy, diuretics and antiemetics.

LIMITATIONS

This scoping review neither explored cases of processed VVF ingestion nor did it chart laboratory findings; therefore, potentially clinically significant findings in these areas may have been missed.

CONCLUSIONS

VVF ingestion typically causes gastrointestinal/renal dysfunction, with no clear toxicity attributable to VVF type. Treatments varied according to the presence/absence of clinical signs, and the prognosis was varied. Further research on current treatment efficacy is warranted, permitting an evidence-based, risk-benefit approach to be adopted by clinicians.

Complications and postoperative non-steroidal anti-inflammatory use of three extracapsular cruciate ligament repair techniques performed in a general practice clinic environment

OBJECTIVE

To report complications and postoperative non-steroidal anti-inflammatory use associated with fabellotibial suture, Tightrope and Ligafiba Isotoggle procedures performed on dogs of varying weights within a general practice setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical records of eligible patients from 2009 to 2018 were retrospectively extracted from five general practice clinics. Data for signalment, patient weight, surgery performed, complications, postoperative use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and timing thereof were extracted and analysed using multinomial logistic regression. Predicted probability tables were generated for complications and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use.

RESULTS

The study included 370 surgeries, with 97 fabellotibial suture, 158 Tightrope and 42 Ligafiba Isotoggle procedures in patients less than 15 kg, and 43 fabellotibial suture, 16 Tightrope and 30 Ligafiba Isotoggle procedures in patients at least 15 kg. The proportion of patients that can be expected to have no complications was greatest for older dogs (9 years) weighing less than 15 kg (fabellotibial suture, 91%; Tightrope/Ligafiba Isotoggle, 88%), and the highest major medical and surgical complication risks were expected in young dogs (1 year) weighing over 15 kg (fabellotibial suture, 28%; Tightrope/Ligafiba Isotoggle, 59%). The predicted risk of requiring repeated non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug prescriptions in the 18-month postoperative period for an 15 kg patient was 37% to 39%.

CONCLUSION

Weight and age were significant factors influencing complications and postoperative non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in fabellotibial suture, Tightrope and Ligafiba Isotoggle surgical patients in a general practice setting.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Clinicians should consider the possibility of complications and requirement for ongoing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use before performing extracapsular procedures in patients weighing more than 15 kg.

Watch your language: An exploration of the use of causal wording in veterinary observational research

Observational research may be conducted to predict an outcome or to identify associations between an intervention or risk factor (an “exposure”) and an outcome. However, the end goal of observational research often is to identify exposures that can be manipulated to improve an outcome, meaning that the aim is identify causal relationships. Causal inference from observational studies may be appropriate when an exposure-outcome of interest is identified, causal reasoning is used to identify confounders, confounders are adequately controlled, and theoretical issues, such as temporality, are considered. If these conditions are not met, causal inference cannot be made in an observational study. The objective of our study was to explore the use of causal language in veterinary observational studies, and to compare the use of causal language between studies that appear to be predictive or associational in purpose vs. those that appear to be exploring causal relationships. The dataset comprised 200 observational studies in veterinary species published between 2020 and 2022. The majority (117 out of 200) were cross-sectional studies. There were 48 studies that described an exposure-outcome of interest, and we considered these studies to be exploring potential causal relationships; of note, this liberal categorization would be anticipated to overestimate the proportion of studies suitably designed for causal inference. Overall, 172 studies (86%) used causal wording in at least one section of the article. Causal language was used in 128/152 (84%) of studies exploring predictions or associations; this language implies causation when it is not appropriate to do so. In studies designed such that causal inference might be possible, 44/48 (92%) used causal language in one or more sections. There were no substantive differences in the use of causal wording between observational study designs, exposure types, or whether the first author's affiliation was a country in which English is an official language. There is a need for authors of veterinary observational studies to explicitly state the purpose of the study (associational, predictive, or causal), and to use causal wording appropriately based on the aim of the study.

Levels of Evidence, Quality Assessment, and Risk of Bias: Evaluating the Internal Validity of Primary Research

Clinical decisions in human and veterinary medicine should be based on the best available evidence. The results of primary research are an important component of that evidence base. Regardless of whether assessing studies for clinical case management, developing clinical practice guidelines, or performing systematic reviews, evidence from primary research should be evaluated for internal validity i.e., whether the results are free from bias (reflect the truth). Three broad approaches to evaluating internal validity are available: evaluating the potential for bias in a body of literature based on the study designs employed (levels of evidence), evaluating whether key study design features associated with the potential for bias were employed (quality assessment), and applying a judgement as to whether design elements of a study were likely to result in biased results given the specific context of the study (risk of bias assessment). The level of evidence framework for assessing internal validity assumes that internal validity can be determined based on the study design alone, and thus makes the strongest assumptions. Risk of bias assessments involve an evaluation of the potential for bias in the context of a specific study, and thus involve the least assumptions about internal validity. Quality assessment sits somewhere between the assumptions of these two. Because risk of bias assessment involves the least assumptions, this approach should be used to assess internal validity where possible. However, risk of bias instruments are not available for all study designs, some clinical questions may be addressed using multiple study designs, and some instruments that include an evaluation of internal validity also include additional components (e.g., evaluation of comprehensiveness of reporting, assessments of feasibility or an evaluation of external validity). Therefore, it may be necessary to embed questions related to risk of bias within existing quality assessment instruments. In this article, we overview the approaches to evaluating internal validity, highlight the current complexities, and propose ideas for approaching assessments of internal validity.

Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in Veterinary Medicine: Applying Evidence in Clinical Practice

Critically appraised topics (CATs) are evidence syntheses that provide veterinary professionals with information to rapidly address clinical questions and support the practice of evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM). They also have an important role to play in both undergraduate and post-registration education of veterinary professionals, in research and knowledge gap identification, literature scoping, preparing research grants and informing policy. CATs are not without limitations, the primary one relating to the rapid approach used which may lead to selection bias or restrict information identified or retrieved. Furthermore, the narrow focus of CATs may limit applicability of the evidence findings beyond a specific clinical scenario, and infrequently updated CATs may become redundant. Despite these limitations, CATs are fundamental to EBVM in the veterinary profession. Using the example of a dog with osteoarthritis, the five steps involved in creating and applying a CAT to clinical practice are outlined, with an emphasis on clinical relevance and practicalities. Finally, potential future developments for CATs and their role in EBVM, and the education of veterinary professionals are discussed. This review is focused on critically appraised topics (CATs) as a form of evidence synthesis in veterinary medicine. It aims to be a primary guide for veterinarians, from students to clinicians, and for veterinary nurses and technicians (hereafter collectively called veterinary professionals). Additionally, this review provides further information for those with some experience of CATs who would like to better understand the historic context and process, including further detail on more advanced concepts. This more detailed information will appear in pop-out boxes with a double-lined surround to distinguish it from the information core to producing and interpreting CATs, and from the boxes with a single line surround which contain additional resources relevant to the different parts of the review.

Risk factors for acute abdominal pain (colic) in the adult horse: A scoping review of risk factors, and a systematic review of the effect of management-related changes

Acute abdominal pain (colic) is the most common reason for emergency veterinary treatment in the horse. Consolidation of data through a systematic review is important to inform evidence-based medicine and clinical guidelines, but there are currently no published systematic reviews on colic in the horse. The aim of this study was to identify, categorize and appraise the evidence on factors associated with increased risk of developing abdominal pain (colic) due to gastrointestinal disease in the adult horse. A scoping review was performed to identify and categorize evidence on all risk factors for colic. A systematic review of management-related risk factors was then performed following PRISMA guidelines. Both searches were conducted in Medline, CAB Abstracts and Web of Science databases, and publications were assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. For the scoping review, study and participant characteristics of included publications and key results were extracted and tabulated. For the systematic review, cohort, case-control or cross-sectional studies investigating acute abdominal pain in horses within two weeks of management changes were assessed. Study characteristics, participant characteristics and study results of included publications for the systematic review were extracted and tabulated. Included publications were appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. The scoping review search identified 3,756 publications. Fifty eight studies met final inclusion criteria, and 22 categories of risk factors were identified. These were grouped into three broad areas: horse-related factors, management-related factors and environment-related factors. The largest body of evidence related to management change. The systematic review of management change identified 410 publications: 14 met inclusion criteria for analysis. These consisted of one cohort, eight case-control and five cross-sectional studies. The studies were conducted between 1990-2008, and the majority of studies were located in the USA (8/14) or UK (3/14). The risk factors related to management change that were assessed were feed, carer, exercise, pasture, water and housing. The largest bodies of evidence for increased risk of colic associated with management change were changes in feed (5/14 publications) and recent change in housing (3/14). Most studies (8/14) did not meet the JBI criterion on confounding factors. There was marked heterogeneity of study methodologies and measures. This is the first study to use a combined scoping and systematic review to analyse evidence for modifiable risk factors for a common condition in the horse. It provides a comprehensive review that will be a key resource for researchers, veterinary practitioners and horse owners. It identified modifiable risk factors associated with an increased risk of colic which should be a key target for preventative health programmes. The findings from the critical appraisal were used to develop recommendations for future research to improve the quality of evidence-based veterinary medicine.

An Evidence-Based Rapid Review of Surgical Techniques for Correction of Prolapsed Nictitans Glands in Dogs

Prolapsed nictitans gland (PNG) is an important ocular condition of dogs. Various surgical interventions have been described, but effective technique is currently considered to be a matter of personal clinician preference. The aim of this rapid review was to evaluate existing peer-reviewed evidence of effectiveness for surgical techniques and their subsequent effects on quantitative and clinical lacrimal outcomes for PNG. We performed a structured bibliographic search of CAB Abstracts, PubMed, and Medline using terms relevant to dogs, nictitans gland, and surgery on 13 September 2017. Included studies were assessed for study design, reporting characteristics, surgical techniques, and surgical and lacrimal outcomes. Fifteen of three hundred fifteen identified studies were eligible for inclusion. Seven different replacement techniques were identified, along with gland excision. All studies were observational or descriptive, with the exception of a single crossover trial. Outcomes reporting was heterogeneous and provided limited detail on lacrimal outcomes or on breed propensity for recurrence. Insufficient data precluded comparison of techniques for either surgical failure rates or lacrimal outcomes, although proportional meta-analysis yielded an overall failure rate of 3% (95% CI 1–7%) for the Morgan’s pocket procedure. Improved reporting of veterinary surgical studies will improve evidence appraisal and synthesis, as well as reduce potential sources of bias.

Observational Study Design in Veterinary Pathology, Part 1: Study Design

Observational studies are the basis for much of our knowledge of veterinary pathology and are highly relevant to the daily practice of pathology. However, recommendations for conducting pathology-based observational studies are not readily available. In part 1 of this series, we offer advice on planning and conducting an observational study with examples from the veterinary pathology literature. Investigators should recognize the importance of creativity, insight, and innovation in devising studies that solve problems and fill important gaps in knowledge. Studies should focus on specific and testable hypotheses, questions, or objectives. The methodology is developed to support these goals. We consider the merits and limitations of different types of analytic and descriptive studies, as well as of prospective vs retrospective enrollment. Investigators should define clear inclusion and exclusion criteria and select adequate numbers of study subjects, including careful selection of the most appropriate controls. Studies of causality must consider the temporal relationships between variables and the advantages of measuring incident cases rather than prevalent cases. Investigators must consider unique aspects of studies based on archived laboratory case material and take particular care to consider and mitigate the potential for selection bias and information bias. We close by discussing approaches to adding value and impact to observational studies. Part 2 of the series focuses on methodology and validation of methods.