Accessibility of published research to practicing veterinarians

Publication and accessibility of results of controlled trials in dairy science

Research allows for the discovery of new knowledge and is integral to evidence-based decision-making. However, research is only useful if it is available. The aim of this study was to explore publication and accessibility of full-text reports for controlled trials (experimental studies) conducted in dairy cattle. We determined the proportion of controlled trials presented as abstracts at the 2015 Joint Annual Meeting of the American Dairy Science Association and the American Society of Animal Science or the 2015 American Association of Bovine Practitioners Annual Conference that were subsequently published. Factors associated with publication or non-publication in a peer-reviewed journal were evaluated using risk ratios. For trials that were subsequently published, we compared the sample size, numerical results, and inference between the conference abstract and the subsequent publication. Approximately half of the trials (177 out of 380) reported at conferences were subsequently published. Source conference, whether the conference abstract results were described as preliminary, whether there was at least one positive outcome, author affiliation, whether the trial involved deliberate disease induction, and total sample size were not strongly associated with subsequent publication. For trials that were published, the sample size differed between the conference proceedings and full publications for 22%, the numerical results differed in 29%, and the inference differed for 11%. We also evaluated whether trials included in 9 recent systematic reviews were in English and were available without subscription or cost. Of the 390 trials included in recent systematic reviews, approximately 40% were available only through subscription or access fee. These results suggest that publication and accessibility of research results is suboptimal, representing an area of wastage in dairy cattle research. Researchers should ensure that they publish the results of trials comprehensively in searchable publications, even if the results are not novel or do not detect expected differences, and, when possible, make the results available freely.

Most veterinarians treating exotic animals use formularies to select drug dosages without consistently checking their sources

OBJECTIVE

To assess what information sources veterinarians use to select drug dosages for treating exotic animals and how they implement this information.

SAMPLE

936 veterinarians from Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, and the Americas.

PROCEDURES

An anonymous, online survey was used to collect data on information sources used for dosage decisions by veterinarians treating exotic species. Logistic regression models were built to identify associations between individual characteristics and primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Respondents reported their single most common source for establishing drug dosages as formularies (682/936 [72.9%]), followed by scientific journals (96 [10.3%]), other textbooks (68 [7.3%]), colleagues (47 [5.0%]), or continuing education notes (38 [4.1%]). Over two-thirds of the respondents (645, 68.9%) consulted a specific exotic animal formulary for establishing drug dosages in most situations. Of the 936 respondents, 407 (43.5%) reported that they sometimes (318 [34.0%]) or never (89 [9.5%]) checked the source of a dosage in a textbook or a formulary, 503 (55.3%) reported that they sometimes (399 [42.6%]) or never (104 [11.1%]) searched the original publication on a dosage, and 486 (51.9%) reported that they would base their dosage decision on the abstract of an article if they had no access to the full-text. Several respondents' reported characteristics were significant predictors of primary outcomes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Considering our findings, we recommend authors of formularies and textbooks should focus on evidence-based information and state clearly when information is anecdotal. Tailored strategies to educate veterinarians treating exotic animals on the importance of primary sources are also recommended.

Publication rate and evidence-based evaluation of abstracts presented at the veterinary endoscopy society annual meeting (2004-2019)

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rate of full-length publication for the 2004-2019 Veterinary Endoscopy Society (VES) annual meeting abstracts and to identify abstract and author characteristics as predictors of publication.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational bibliographical study.

SAMPLE POPULATION

Three hundred and eighty-nine abstracts.

METHODS

Abstracts from 2004-2019 Veterinary Endoscopy Society (VES) proceedings and matching full-length publications retrieved from bibliographic databases were systematically reviewed. Variables assessed included species, specimen type (cadaver, live animal, etc.), subdiscipline (orthopedics, internal medicine, etc.), institution, country of origin, study design, level of evidence (LoE), time to publication, number of authors, their credentials, and gender. Logistic regression, Fisher's exact tests and t-tests were used to assess the bivariate relationship between publication and characteristics of the authors and publications.

RESULTS

The overall publication rate for presented abstracts published as full-length articles in peer-reviewed journals was 26%. Median time from abstract presentation to full-length article publication was 430 days. Factors associated with full-length article publication were identified: affiliated institution (P = .01), species studied (P = .04), subdiscipline focus (P = .01), level of evidence (P = .01), number of authors (P = .01), and first author's gender (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Veterinary Endoscopy Society abstracts were commonly categorized into a lower LoE. Abstracts from academic institutions regarding canine patients and soft tissue surgery topics were more likely to be published. Abstracts citing female first authors or with more than 1 author had higher odds of publication.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Data reported provide authors with predictors for publication and identify topics for research opportunities. Veterinary specialty societies may utilize this information when evaluating abstracts.