The term 'Pilot Study' is misused in veterinary medicine: a critical assessment

Quality of reporting of prospective in vivo and ex vivo studies published in the Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care over a 10-year period (2009-2019)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting of key items associated with risk of bias and weak study design over a 10-year period.

DESIGN

Literature survey.

SETTING

Not applicable.

ANIMALS

Not applicable.

INTERVENTIONS

Papers published in the Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care between 2009 and 2019 were screened for inclusion. Inclusion criteria consisted of prospective experimental studies describing in vivo or ex vivo research (or both), containing at least 2 comparison groups. Identified papers had identifying information (publication date, volume and issue, authors, affiliations) redacted by an individual not involved with paper selection or review. Two reviewers independently reviewed all papers and applied an operationalized checklist to categorize item reporting as fully reported, partially reported, not reported, or not applicable. Items assessed included randomization, blinding, data handling (inclusions and exclusions), and sample size estimation. Differences in assessment between reviewers were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. A secondary aim was to document availability of data used to generate study results. Papers were screened for links to access data in the text and supporting information.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

After screening, 109 papers were included. Eleven papers were excluded during full-text review, with 98 papers included in the final analysis. Randomization was fully reported in 31.6% of papers (31/98). Blinding was fully reported in 31.6% of papers (31/98). Inclusion criteria were fully reported in all papers. Exclusion criteria were fully reported in 60.2% of papers (59/98). Sample size estimation was fully reported in 8.0% of papers (6/75). No papers (0/99) made data freely available without a requirement to contact study authors.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial room for improvement in reporting of randomization, blinding, data exclusions, and sample size estimations. Evaluation of study quality by readers is limited by the low reporting levels identified, and the risk of bias present indicates a potential for inflated effect sizes.

Intra-Articular Injections of Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stromal Cells vs. High Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid in Dogs With Osteoarthritis: Exploratory Data From a Double-Blind, Randomized, Prospective Clinical Trial

This double-blind, randomized, prospective clinical trial was conducted to obtain exploratory data comparing the efficacy of intra-articular allogeneic mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSC) to high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (HA) for the treatment of pain associated with canine osteoarthritis (OA). Objective gait analysis (%Body Weight Distribution, %BWD), accelerometry, clinical metrology instruments and veterinary exams were used as outcome measures during various time points throughout the 48-week study period. Fourteen dogs with elbow or coxofemoral OA were enrolled and assigned in a 2:1 ratio to the treatment groups. Each patient received a set of two injections 4 weeks apart. Self-limiting joint flare was observed in seven patients, with six of these in the MSC group. Ten patients completed all follow-up appointments. Both treatment groups showed evidence of mild improvement following the treatment, but the results were inconsistent among the various outcome measures assessed. Overall, dogs enrolled in the HA group showed greater improvement compared to the MSC group. The primary outcome measure, %BWD, showed evidence of improvement, when compared to baseline values, at 36 weeks after injection for the HA group only (p = 0.048, estimated difference: 4.7). Similarly, when treatment groups were compared, evidence of a difference between treatment groups (with the HA-group showing greater improvement) were identified for weeks 24 and 36 (p = 0.02 and 0.01, respectively). The small sample size of this exploratory study does not allow firm conclusions. However, until studies with larger sample sizes are available, the current literature combined with our data do not support the clinical use of intra-articular MSC therapy over high molecular weight HA for the treatment of canine OA at this time.