Assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses available for bovine and equine veterinarians and quality of abstract reporting: A scoping review.
Abstract: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is used in various areas including veterinary medicine. The assessment of the quality of systematic review and meta-analyses (SR-MA) despite their importance in the EBM process is uncommonly performed in veterinary medicine due to the absence of specific dedicated tools. The main objective of this observational study was to examine the extent and nature of SR-MA that can be available online to an equine or bovine veterinarian. Secondary objectives included: (1) to determine if A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool can be used for equine and bovine SR-MA methodological assessment and if it has a satisfactory interrater reliability in a subsample of these SR-MA and (2) to appraise the completeness of abstract reporting of this sample. Methods: A scoping review using equine and bovine medical science SR-MA retrieved from PubMed was performed. A sub-sample of these reviews (n = 30) were independently assessed by 3 different raters using the AMSTAR tool validated for medical reviews. The completeness of abstract reporting was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Results: Ten and 168 SR-MA were retrieved for equine and bovine species respectively. For bovine SR-MA, 93 reviews were about nutrition and metabolism topic. On the 30 SR-MA subsamples, with 10 equine and 20 bovine SR-MA randomly chosen for AMSTAR assessment, the median interrater agreement (Kappa) was 0.60 (interquartile range: 0.36-0.71) depending on AMSTAR item and pairs of raters. When focusing on the total score of AMSTAR, the inter-observer intra-class correlation coefficient was very good (0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-0.92). The AMSTAR items that were unfrequently reported (33% or less of reviews) were "a priori" protocol of SR-MA specification, complete report of the list of studies (included and excluded studies), quality assessment of the included studies, publication bias assessment and conflict of interest (reported either for included studies and for SR-MA authors). Abstracts reporting quality was low with a median percentage of complete reported items of 33% (range: 8-58%) CONCLUSIONS: In large animal veterinary medicine, SR-MA are uncommonly performed in equine and bovine medicine. The SR-MA can be assessed using AMSTAR with acceptable inter-rater reliability, which is helpful to assess SR-MA methodological quality.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Publication Date: 2018-10-23 PubMed ID: 30466658DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.10.011Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
- Journal Article
- Review
Summary
This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.
This research explores the availability, quality, and reporting standards of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR-MA) in equine and bovine veterinary medicine. The authors used the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) to assess the methodology quality and the study also evaluated the completeness of abstract reporting.
Overview of the study and its methodology
- This study is observational in nature. It aims to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR-MA) available to bovine and equine veterinarians, as SR-MA are essential tools in evidence-based veterinary medicine.
- The research was conducted using a scoping review methodology. The researchers collected systematic reviews and meta-analyses from PubMed related to equine and bovine medicine.
- A sub-sample of thirty SR-MAs was randomly selected for quality assessment using the AMSTAR tool. This tool, initially designed for human medicine, was tested for its applicability and reliability in veterinary medicine.
- In addition, the quality of abstract reporting in this sub-sample was evaluated using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.
Results of the Study
- The initial research yielded ten SR-MAs for equine medicine and 168 SR-MAs for bovine medicine. Notably, 93 of the bovine SR-MA were about nutrition and metabolism.
- The interrater agreement in the AMSTAR assessment was acceptable with the median kappa statistic being 0.60, which is considered moderate-to-substantial interrater agreement.
- The inter-observer intra-class correlation coefficient was very good (0.85), indicating a high level of agreement in the AMSTAR evaluation between different raters.
- The less frequently reported items were specification of protocol, complete report of the list of studies, quality assessment of the included studies, publication bias assessment, and conflicts of interest.
- The abstract reporting quality was deemed low, with only 33% of abstracts completely reporting all necessary items, suggesting a need for improvement in veterinary SR-MA abstract writing.
Conclusions of the Study
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are not commonly conducted for equine and bovine medicine, despite their importance for evidence-based veterinary medicine.
- The AMSTAR tool was proven to be an effective method for assessing the methodology quality of a SR-MA for bovine and equine veterinarians, with acceptable interrater reliability.
- There is a need for more consistent and complete reporting of various aspects of a systematic review or meta-analysis, including conflict of interest, publication bias, and study selection. This will help improve the quality and transparency of research in this field.
Cite This Article
APA
Buczinski S, Ferraro S, Vandeweerd JM.
(2018).
Assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses available for bovine and equine veterinarians and quality of abstract reporting: A scoping review.
Prev Vet Med, 161, 50-59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.10.011 Publication
Researcher Affiliations
- Département des sciences cliniques, Faculté de médecine vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada. Electronic address: s.buczinski@umontreal.ca.
- Département des sciences cliniques, Faculté de médecine vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.
- Integrated Veterinary Research Unit, Research Institute for Life Sciences, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Sciences, Université de Namur, Belgium.
MeSH Terms
- Animals
- Bibliometrics
- Cattle
- Cattle Diseases
- Evidence-Based Practice / methods
- Horse Diseases
- Horses
- Meta-Analysis as Topic
- Reproducibility of Results
- Research / standards
- Veterinary Medicine
Citations
This article has been cited 1 times.- Curtis L, Burford JH, England GCW, Freeman SL. 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.. PLoS One 2019;14(7):e0219307.
Use Nutrition Calculator
Check if your horse's diet meets their nutrition requirements with our easy-to-use tool Check your horse's diet with our easy-to-use tool
Talk to a Nutritionist
Discuss your horse's feeding plan with our experts over a free phone consultation Discuss your horse's diet over a phone consultation
Submit Diet Evaluation
Get a customized feeding plan for your horse formulated by our equine nutritionists Get a custom feeding plan formulated by our nutritionists
