Philosophical foundations of evidence-based medicine for veterinary clinicians

Veterinarian barriers to knowledge translation (KT) within the context of swine infectious disease research: an international survey of swine veterinarians

Background

Food animal veterinarians face commodity specific and urgent global challenges yet conditions preventing use of best available knowledge have been sparsely studied. The American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) membership (N = 1289) was surveyed online to benchmark their information priorities and their motivations and sources for keeping current with infectious disease research, and to describe their reported time, skill, access, and process as barriers to knowledge translation (KT).

Results

Respondents (n = 80) were mostly from Canada (n = 40) and the U.S.A (n = 31) and demographics approximated the AASV’s. Colleagues are the first choice for information on difficult cases (49%, 95%CI: 38–61). Half of respondents (53%, 95%CI: 41–64) spend an hour or less per week keeping up with infectious disease research. The majority reported moderate or less than moderate efficiency (62%, 95%CI: 51–72), and moderate or greater stress (59%, 95%CI: 48–70) with their process for keeping up. Journal article methods sections are commonly not read, almost a third (32%, 95% CI: 22–43) reported either they do not evaluate statistical methods or that they had poor confidence to do so, and half (52, 95%CI: 41–63) could not explain ‘confounding bias’. Approximately half (55%, 95%CI: 41-69) with direct oversight of swine herds had full access to 2 or fewer academic journals. Approximately a third of respondents (34%, 95%CI: 24–46) selected only formats involving single research studies (either full text or summaries) as preferred reading materials for keeping current over expert summaries of the body of evidence.

Conclusion

KT barriers are considerable and a source of stress for many swine veterinarians. Sub-optimal efficiency with keeping up and low confidence to appraise aspects of research are concerns. Results are consistent with previous literature and illustrate need for improved KT infrastructure and for additional training in statistical methods and interpretation of primary research. Further evaluation is warranted of why approximately a third of veterinarians in this study, for the purpose of keeping up, preferentially choose to review individual research studies over choices that would include an expert summary of the body of evidence. Consideration of reasons for this preference will be important in the planning of KT infrastructure improvements.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12917-020-02617-8.

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.

Systematic review of antiepileptic drugs' safety and effectiveness in feline epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Understanding the efficacy and safety profile of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in feline epilepsy is a crucial consideration for managing this important brain disease. However, there is a lack of information about the treatment of feline epilepsy and therefore a systematic review was constructed to assess current evidence for the AEDs' efficacy and tolerability in cats. The methods and materials of our former systematic reviews in canine epilepsy were mostly mirrored for the current systematic review in cats. Databases of PubMed, CAB Direct and Google scholar were searched to detect peer-reviewed studies reporting efficacy and/or adverse effects of AEDs in cats. The studies were assessed with regards to their quality of evidence, i.e. study design, study population, diagnostic criteria and overall risk of bias and the outcome measures reported, i.e. prevalence and 95% confidence interval of the successful and affected population in each study and in total.

RESULTS

Forty studies describing clinical outcomes of AEDs' efficacy and safety were included. Only two studies were classified as "blinded randomised controlled trials". The majority of the studies offered high overall risk of bias and described low feline populations with unclear diagnostic criteria and short treatment or follow-up periods. Individual AED assessments of efficacy and safety profile showed that phenobarbital might currently be considered as the first choice AED followed by levetiracetam and imepitoin. Only imepitoin's safety profile was supported by strong level of evidence. Imepitoin's efficacy as well as remaining AEDs' efficacy and safety profile were supported by weak level of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review reflects an evidence-based assessment of the published data on the AEDs' efficacy and safety for feline epilepsy. Currently, phenobarbital is likely to be the first-line for feline epileptic patients followed by levetiracetam and imepitoin. It is essential that clinicians evaluate both AEDs' effectiveness and tolerability before tailoring AED to the individual patient. Further studies in feline epilepsy treatment are by far crucial in order to establish definite guidelines for AEDs' efficacy and safety.

Antiepileptic drugs' tolerability and safety--a systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse effects in dogs

Background

The safety profile of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important consideration for the regulatory bodies, owners and prescribing clinicians. Information on their adverse effects still remains limited. A systematic review including a meta-analytic approach was designed to evaluate existing evidence for the safety profile of AEDs in canine patients. Electronic searches of PubMed, CAB Direct and Google scholar were carried out without date or language restrictions. Conference proceedings were also searched. Peer-reviewed full-length studies reporting adverse effects of AEDs in epileptic and healthy non-epileptic dogs were included. Studies were allocated to three groups based on their design. Individual studies were evaluated based on the quality of evidence (study design, study group sizes, subject enrolment quality and overall risk of bias) and the outcome measures reported (proportion of specific adverse effects for each AED, prevalence and 95 % confidence interval of the affected population in each study and comparative odds ratio of adverse effects for AEDs).

Results

Ninety studies, including six conference proceedings, reporting clinical outcomes of AEDs’ adverse effects were identified. Few studies were designed as blinded randomised controlled clinical trials. Many studies included low canine populations with unclear criteria of subject enrolment and short treatment periods. Direct comparisons suggested that imepitoin and levetiracetam might have a better safety profile than phenobarbital, whilst the latter might have a better safety profile than potassium bromide. However, none of these comparisons showed a statistically significant difference. Comparisons between other AEDs were not possible as a considerable amount of studies lacked power calculations or adequate data to allow further statistical analysis. Individual AED assessments indicated that levetiracetam might be one of the safest AEDs, followed by imepitoin and then phenobarbital and potassium bromide; these findings were all supported by a strong level of evidence. The safety profile in other AEDs was variable, but weak evidence was found to permit firm conclusions or to compare their safety to other AEDs.

Conclusions

This systematic review provides objective evaluation of the most commonly used AEDs’ adverse effects. Adverse effects usually appeared mild in all AEDs and subsided once doses and/or serum levels were monitored or after the AED was withdrawn. Although phenobarbital might be less safe than imepitoin and levetiracetam, there was insufficient evidence to classify it as an AED with a high risk of major adverse effects. It is important for clinicians to evaluate both AEDs’ effectiveness and safety on an individual basis before the selection of the appropriate monotherapy or adjunctive AED therapy.

Integrative veterinary medical education and consensus guidelines for an integrative veterinary medicine curriculum within veterinary colleges

Integrative veterinary medicine (IVM) describes the combination of complementary and alternative therapies with conventional care and is guided by the best available evidence. Veterinarians frequently encounter questions about complementary and alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM) in practice, and the general public has demonstrated increased interest in these areas for both human and animal health. Consequently, veterinary students should receive adequate exposure to the principles, theories, and current knowledge supporting or refuting such techniques. A proposed curriculum guideline would broadly introduce students to the objective evaluation of new veterinary treatments while increasing their preparation for responding to questions about IVM in clinical practice. Such a course should be evidence-based, unbiased, and unaffiliated with any particular CAVM advocacy or training group. All IVM courses require routine updating as new information becomes available. Controversies regarding IVM and CAVM must be addressed within the course and throughout the entire curriculum. Instructional honesty regarding the uncertainties in this emerging field is critical. Increased training of future veterinary professionals in IVM may produce an openness to new ideas that characterizes the scientific method and a willingness to pursue and incorporate evidence-based medicine in clinical practice with all therapies, including those presently regarded as integrative, complementary, or alternative.

A systematic review of the safety of potassium bromide in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To critically evaluate and summarize available information on the safety of potassium bromide in dogs.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SAMPLE

111 references reporting safety information relevant to potassium bromide published between 1938 and 2011.

PROCEDURES

PubMed searches without date limitations were conducted with the terms "potassium bromide" and "sodium bromide" in December 2009 and October 2011. Additional articles were identified through examination of article reference lists and book chapters on seizures in dogs and pharmacology.

RESULTS

Reversible neurologic signs were the most consistently reported toxicoses and were generally associated with adjunctive potassium bromide treatment or high serum bromide concentrations. Dermatologic and respiratory abnormalities were rare in dogs. Insufficient information was available to assess the effects of potassium bromide on behavior or to determine the incidence of vomiting, weight gain, polyphagia, pancreatitis, polyuria, polydipsia, or reproductive abnormalities associated with potassium bromide administration. Evidence suggested that administration of potassium bromide with food may alleviate gastrointestinal irritation and that monitoring for polyphagia, thyroid hormone abnormalities, and high serum bromide concentrations may be beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results suggested that potassium bromide is not an appropriate choice for treatment of every dog with seizures and that practitioners should tailor therapeutic regimens and clinical monitoring to each dog. Abrupt dietary changes or fluid therapy may compromise seizure control or increase the likelihood of adverse events. Availability of an appropriately labeled, approved potassium bromide product could provide better assurance for veterinarians and their clients of the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the product for veterinary use.

Understanding veterinary practitioners' decision-making process: implications for veterinary medical education

Understanding how veterinary practitioners make clinical decisions, and how they use scientific information to inform their decisions, is important to optimize animal care, client satisfaction, and veterinary education. We aimed to develop an understanding of private practitioners' process of decision making. On the basis of a grounded-theory qualitative approach, we conducted a telephone survey and semi-structured face-to-face interviews. We identified a decision-making framework consisting of two possible processes to make decisions, five steps in the management of a clinical case, and three influencing factors. To inform their decision, veterinary surgeons rarely take the evidence-based medicine (EBM) approach. They consult first-opinion colleagues, specialists, laboratories, and the Internet rather than scientific databases and peer-reviewed literature, mainly because of limited time. Most interviewees suggested the development of educational interventions to better develop decision-making skills in veterinary schools. Adequate information and EBM tools are needed to optimize the time spent in query and assessment of scientific information, and practitioners need to be trained in their use.