Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
4.2
3.0
Journals
Animals
Special Issues
Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine: Impact on Animal Health and Welfare
share announcement

Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine: Impact on Animal Health and Welfare

A special issue of Animals (ISSN 2076-2615).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 June 2024 | Viewed by 5460

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Sebastian Patrick Arlt

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany
Interests: small animal reproduction; large animal reproduction; parturition; metabolism; effects of neutering; data acquisition from practice
Dr. David Ramey

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Ramey Equine, Chatsworth, CA 91311, USA
Interests: horses; pseudoscience; “alternative” medicine; equine welfare; lameness; evidence-based practice
Dr. Silvan Urfer

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
Interests: dogs; lifespan; survival analysis; mortality; epidemiology; geroscience; animal welfare

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues, 

The aim of this Special Issue is to provide insights into the development and understanding of knowledge translation and evidence-based decision-making in veterinary medicine, according to evidence-based principles.

The practice of evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM) is not limited to high-quality research results from randomized and controlled trials. We not only invite rigorous scientific studies, but also meta-analyses or systematic reviews, as well as findings and commentaries on tools, methods, and concepts that are vital to EBVM. Other vital concepts may include reports about clinical trial registers, ensuring reproducibility of results, papers on literature evaluation, new approaches to gathering information from practice, and strategies for policy making and management. Other projects, such as the workup of failures, assessment of drug safety, concepts for education, approaches for owner communication (shared decision making), and examples of application of EBVM to veterinary practice, are also welcome.

Dr. Sebastian Patrick Arlt
Dr. David Ramey
Dr. Silvan Urfer
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Animals is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • evidence-based veterinary medicine
  • clinical veterinary medicine
  • clinical reasoning
  • improvement of clinical care

Published Papers (3 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

17 pages, 2199 KiB  
Article
Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated with Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP) in Mainland China between 2008 and 2023: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
by Tingyu Hu, Huiling Zhang, Xueping Zhang, Xingping Hong and Tangjie Zhang
Animals 2024, 14(8), 1220; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14081220 - 18 Apr 2024
Viewed by 365
Abstract
To evaluate the overall prevalence of FIP infection in cats in mainland China and associated risk factors, studies on the prevalence of FIP conducted from 1 January 2008 to 20 December 2023 were retrieved from five databases—CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, Web of Science, and [...] Read more.
To evaluate the overall prevalence of FIP infection in cats in mainland China and associated risk factors, studies on the prevalence of FIP conducted from 1 January 2008 to 20 December 2023 were retrieved from five databases—CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect—and comprehensively reviewed. The 21 studies selected, with a total of 181,014 samples, underwent a rigorous meta-analysis after quality assessment. The results revealed a 2% prevalence of FIP (95% CI: 1–2%) through the random-effects model, showing considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 95.2%). The subsequent subgroup analysis revealed that the age and gender of cats are significant risk factors for FIP infection in mainland China. In order to effectively reduce and control the prevalence of FIP on the Chinese mainland, we suggest improving the immunity of cats, with special attention given to health management in kittens and intact cats, and continuously monitoring FIPV. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine: Impact on Animal Health and Welfare)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 3837 KiB  
Article
What Kinds of Dogs Are Used in Clinical and Experimental Research?
by Evelyn Schulte and Sebastian P. Arlt
Animals 2022, 12(12), 1487; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12121487 - 08 Jun 2022
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 3165
Abstract
Background: Dogs are widely used in research to answer questions about canine or human conditions. For the latter, research dogs are often used as models, since they are physiologically more similar to humans than other species used in research and they share similar [...] Read more.
Background: Dogs are widely used in research to answer questions about canine or human conditions. For the latter, research dogs are often used as models, since they are physiologically more similar to humans than other species used in research and they share similar environmental conditions. From a veterinary perspective, research findings are widely based on academic research, and thus are generated under experimental conditions. In that regard, the question arises: do the dogs used for research adequately represent the dog population seen in veterinary practice? It may, for example, be assumed that Beagle dogs are often used as experimental animals. The objective of this study was to evaluate the signalment of dogs used in veterinary research. Furthermore, we aimed to assess other relevant criteria regarding the validity of clinical trials in the context of six different veterinary medicine specialties: cardiology, internal medicine, neurology, orthopaedics, reproduction, and surgery. Methods: A literature search was conducted and 25 studies per specialty were randomly selected. The breed, sex, neuter status, median age, and median weight of the dogs used for clinical studies (n = 150) published between 2007 and 2019 were evaluated. Results: In total, 596,542 dogs were used in the 150 trials. Breed information was given for 33,835 of these dogs (5.7%). Of the latter, 1.9% were Beagles. Nine clinical trials exclusively used Beagles. The most frequently used breeds were German Shepherds (7.3%), Labrador Retrievers (6.7%), and Golden Retrievers (4.7%). The major reporting deficits found were missing breed specification in 25.3% of the articles; missing information about the sex of the dogs in 16.2%; missing age and weight information in 22.7 and 32.7%, respectively; and missing neuter status in 38.7% of the clinical studies. The median sample size was 56 (Q1:29; Q3:365) dogs. Conclusions: The presented project revealed that Beagle dogs represent only a small proportion of dogs in veterinary research. Based on the evaluated publications, it seems that some relevant dog attributes differ between the specialties. The results, however, show deficits in the reporting of demographic data for the dogs. The need for an improvement in the documentation and/or reporting of animal signalment is obvious and should be addressed by authors, reviewers, and journal editors in the future. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine: Impact on Animal Health and Welfare)
►▼ Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Review

Jump to: Research

34 pages, 5575 KiB  
Review
Does Vaccine-Induced Maternally-Derived Immunity Protect Swine Offspring against Influenza a Viruses? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Challenge Trials from 1990 to May 2021
by Sheila Keay, Zvonimir Poljak, Famke Alberts, Annette O’Connor, Robert Friendship, Terri L. O’Sullivan and Jan M. Sargeant
Animals 2023, 13(19), 3085; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13193085 - 03 Oct 2023
Viewed by 1269
Abstract
It is unclear if piglets benefit from vaccination of sows against influenza. For the first time, methods of evidence-based medicine were applied to answer the question: “Does vaccine-induced maternally-derived immunity (MDI) protect swine offspring against influenza A viruses?”. Challenge trials were reviewed that [...] Read more.
It is unclear if piglets benefit from vaccination of sows against influenza. For the first time, methods of evidence-based medicine were applied to answer the question: “Does vaccine-induced maternally-derived immunity (MDI) protect swine offspring against influenza A viruses?”. Challenge trials were reviewed that were published from 1990 to April 2021 and measured at least one of six outcomes in MDI-positive versus MDI-negative offspring (hemagglutination inhibition (HI) titers, virus titers, time to begin and time to stop shedding, risk of infection, average daily gain (ADG), and coughing) (n = 15). Screening and extraction of study characteristics was conducted in duplicate by two reviewers, with data extraction and assessment for risk of bias performed by one. Homology was defined by the antigenic match of vaccine and challenge virus hemagglutinin epitopes. Results: Homologous, but not heterologous MDI, reduced virus titers in piglets. There was no difference, calculated as relative risks (RR), in infection incidence risk over the entire study period; however, infection hazard (instantaneous risk) was decreased in pigs with MDI (log HR = −0.64, 95% CI: −1.13, −0.15). Overall, pigs with MDI took about a ½ day longer to begin shedding virus post-challenge (MD = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.99) but the hazard of infected pigs ceasing to shed was not different (log HR = 0.32, 95% CI: −0.29, 0.93). HI titers were synthesized qualitatively and although data on ADG and coughing was extracted, details were insufficient for conducting meta-analyses. Conclusion: Homology of vaccine strains with challenge viruses is an important consideration when assessing vaccine effectiveness. Herd viral dynamics are complex and may include concurrent or sequential exposures in the field. The practical significance of reduced weaned pig virus titers is, therefore, not known and evidence from challenge trials is insufficient to make inferences on the effects of MDI on incidence risk, time to begin or to cease shedding virus, coughing, and ADG. The applicability of evidence from single-strain challenge trials to field practices is limited. Despite the synthesis of six outcomes, challenge trial evidence does not support or refute vaccination of sows against influenza to protect piglets. Additional research is needed; controlled trials with multi-strain concurrent or sequential heterologous challenges have not been conducted, and sequential homologous exposure trials were rare. Consensus is also warranted on (1) the selection of core outcomes, (2) the sizing of trial populations to be reflective of field populations, (3) the reporting of antigenic characterization of vaccines, challenge viruses, and sow exposure history, and (4) on the collection of non-aggregated individual pig data. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine: Impact on Animal Health and Welfare)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-3
Back to TopTop