Explanation and Elaboration Document for the STROBE‐Vet Statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology – Veterinary Extension

The STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement was first published in 2007 and again in 2014. The purpose of the original STROBE was to provide guidance for authors, reviewers and editors to improve the comprehensiveness of reporting; however, STROBE has a unique focus on observational studies. Although much of the guidance provided by the original STROBE document is directly applicable, it was deemed useful to map those statements to veterinary concepts, provide veterinary examples and highlight unique aspects of reporting in veterinary observational studies. Here, we present the examples and explanations for the checklist items included in the STROBE‐Vet Statement. Thus, this is a companion document to the STROBE‐Vet Statement Methods and process document, which describes the checklist and how it was developed.     

Issues of reporting in observational studies in veterinary medicine

Observational studies are common in veterinary medicine; the results may be used to inform decision-making, future research, or as inputs to systematic reviews or risk assessment. To be of use, the results must be published, all of the outcomes that were assessed must be included in the publication, and the research (methods and results) must be reported in sufficient detail that the reader can evaluate the internal and external validity. In human healthcare, concerns about the completeness of reporting – and evidence that poor reporting is associated with study results – have led to the creation of reporting guidelines; these include the STROBE statement for observational studies.     

The REFLECT Statement: Methods and Processes of Creating Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials for Livestock and Food Safety by Modifying the CONSORT Statement†

The conduct of randomized controlled trials in livestock with production, health and food‐safety outcomes presents unique challenges that may not be adequately reported in trial reports. The objective of this project was to modify the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to reflect the unique aspects of reporting these livestock trials. A 2‐day consensus meeting was held on 18–19 November 2008 in Chicago, IL, USA, to achieve the objective. Prior to the meeting, a Web‐based survey was conducted to identify issues for discussion. The 24 attendees were biostatisticians, epidemiologists, food‐safety researchers, livestock‐production specialists, journal editors, assistant editors and associate editors. Prior to the meeting, the attendees completed a Web‐based survey indicating which CONSORT statement items may need to be modified to address unique issues for livestock trials. The consensus meeting resulted in the production of the REFLECT (Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Control Trials) statement for livestock and food safety and 22‐item checklist. Fourteen items were modified from the CONSORT checklist and an additional sub‐item was proposed to address challenge trials. The REFLECT statement proposes new terminology, more consistent with common usage in livestock production, to describe study subjects. Evidence was not always available to support modification to or inclusion of an item. The use of the REFLECT statement, which addresses issues unique to livestock trials, should improve the quality of reporting and design for trials reporting production, health and food‐safety outcomes.     

The REFLECT Statement: Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in Livestock and Food Safety: Explanation and Elaboration†

Concerns about the completeness and accuracy of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the impact of poor reporting on decision making have been documented in the medical field over the past several decades. Experience from RCTs in human medicine would suggest that failure to report critical trial features can be associated with biased estimated effect measures, and there is evidence to suggest that similar biases occur in RCTs conducted in livestock populations. In response to these concerns, standardized guidelines for reporting RCTs were developed and implemented in human medicine. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first published in 1996, with a revised edition published in 2001. The CONSORT statement consists of a 22‐item checklist for reporting a RCT and a flow diagram to follow the number of participants at each stage of a trial. An explanation and elaboration document not only defines and discusses the importance of each of the items, but also provides examples of how this information could be supplied in a publication. Differences between human and livestock populations necessitate modifications to the CONSORT statement to maximize its usefulness for RCTs involving livestock. These have been addressed in an extension of the CONSORT statement titled the REFLECT statement: Methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized control trials for livestock and food safety. The modifications made for livestock trials specifically addressed the common use of group housing and group allocation to intervention in livestock studies; the use of deliberate challenge models in some trials and the common use of non‐clinical outcomes, such as contamination with a foodborne pathogen. In addition, the REFLECT statement for RCTs in livestock populations proposed specific terms or further clarified terms as they pertained to livestock studies.     

The REFLECT Statement: Methods and Processes of Creating Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials for Livestock and Food Safety

The conduct of randomized controlled trials in livestock with production, health, and food-safety outcomes presents unique challenges that might not be adequately reported in trial reports. The objective of this project was to modify the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to reflect the unique aspects of reporting these livestock trials. A 2-day consensus meeting was held on November 18–19, 2008 in Chicago, IL, to achieve the objective. Before the meeting, a Web-based survey was conducted to identify issues for discussion. The 24 attendees were biostatisticians, epidemiologists, food-safety researchers, livestock production specialists, journal editors, assistant editors, and associate editors. Before the meeting, the attendees completed a Web-based survey indicating which CONSORT statement items would need to be modified to address unique issues for livestock trials. The consensus meeting resulted in the production of the REFLECT (Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Control Trials) statement for livestock and food safety and 22-item checklist. Fourteen items were modified from the CONSORT checklist, and an additional subitem was proposed to address challenge trials. The REFLECT statement proposes new terminology, more consistent with common usage in livestock production, to describe study subjects. Evidence was not always available to support modification to or inclusion of an item. The use of the REFLECT statement, which addresses issues unique to livestock trials, should improve the quality of reporting and design for trials reporting production, health, and food-safety outcomes.     

Consensus-based reporting standards for diagnostic test accuracy studies for paratuberculosis in ruminants

The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement (www.stard-statement.org) was developed to encourage complete and transparent reporting of key elements of test accuracy studies in human medicine. The statement was motivated by widespread evidence of bias in test accuracy studies and the finding that incomplete or absent reporting of items in the STARD checklist was associated with overly optimistic estimates of test performance characteristics. Although STARD principles apply broadly, specific guidelines do not exist to account for unique considerations in livestock studies such as herd tests, potential use of experimental challenge studies, a more diverse group of testing purposes and sampling designs, and the widespread lack of an ante-mortem reference standard with high sensitivity and specificity. The objective of the present study was to develop a modified version of STARD relevant to paratuberculosis (Johne's disease) in ruminants. Examples and elaborations for each of the 25 items were developed by a panel of experts using a consensus-based approach to explain the items and underlying concepts. The new guidelines, termed STRADAS-paraTB (Standards for Reporting of Animal Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for paratuberculosis), should facilitate improved quality of reporting of the design, conduct and results of paratuberculosis test accuracy studies which were identified as "poor" in a review published in 2008 in Veterinary Microbiology.     

The veterinary pharmacovigilance program of the APVMA

This paper provides an overview of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority's (APVMA) Adverse Experience Reporting Program for veterinary medicines (AERP Vet). It outlines the history of the AERP Vet and how the program investigates adverse experience reports received from veterinarians, product registrants and members of the public. The benefits to veterinarians of such a program are highlighted and include the ability to trust in the safety, quality and efficacy of the veterinary drugs that they handle and administer daily.     

Methodological quality and completeness of reporting in clinical trials conducted in livestock species

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating efficacy of treatments under real world conditions and, as such, it is important that they are conducted with methodological rigour to prevent biased results. Many medical journals have adopted a standard checklist for reporting of RCTs, the CONSORT statement. The objective of this study was to evaluate clinical trials in livestock populations to assess methodological quality and completeness of reporting and to investigate the association between these criteria and treatment effects. A total of 100 clinical trials published between 2006 and 2008 in the English language were randomly selected. For each trial, 2 reviewers independently completed a checklist based on the CONSORT statement and a different 2 reviewers completed a standard template describing the outcomes used and the statistical significance of all reported treatment effects. Disagreements among reviewers were resolved by consensus. The results showed that there were substantive deficiencies in the reporting of many of trial features, both related to methodological quality and completeness of reporting. Details on key features such as randomization, double blinding, and the number of subjects lost to follow-up were reported in only 67, 4, and 62% of trials, respectively. Reporting of random allocation to treatment group was associated with a lower proportion of positive treatments effects within trials, as was reporting of inclusion/exclusion criteria for study subjects, details on the intervention, animal signalment, significance tests of baseline differences for at least one variable, and the methods used to measure all outcomes. The results suggest that there are deficiencies in the current reporting of important features of RCTs conducted in livestock species and that these deficiencies may be associated with biased treatment effects. The creation and adoption of standards for trial reporting in livestock could aid authors, reviewers, and editors in ensuring that necessary trial details are reported in all published trials.     

Acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndromes in veterinary medicine: consensus definitions: The Dorothy Russell Havemeyer Working Group on ALI and ARDS in Veterinary Medicine

Background: As veterinary medicine has become more sophisticated, with greater numbers of veterinary patients receiving intensive care, more patients with an acute respiratory distress (ARDS)‐like syndrome have been recognized. Methods: A consensus definition meeting was held for the purpose of developing veterinary‐specific definitions for acute lung injury (ALI) and ARDS. Results/conclusions: Three clinically based definitions for acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress‐like syndromes occurring in veterinary patients were described. Neonatal equine respiratory distress syndrome (NERDS) was defined separately due to the specific requirement for primary developmental surfactant dysfunction and lack of an inflammatory component. Five diagnostic criteria categories were established for Veterinary ALI/ARDS (Vet ALI/ARDS) with 4 required and a fifth highly recommended criteria. A strong consensus was reached that onset of respiratory distress must have been acute and that known risk factors must be present. Additional criteria included evidence of pulmonary capillary leak with no evidence of increased pulmonary capillary pressure, evidence of inefficient gas exchange and, finally, evidence of inflammation. Some features of ALI/ARDS in the neonatal horse were recognized as unique, therefore, equine neonatal ALI/ARDS (EqNALI/EqNARDS) was similarly defined but with a graded gas exchange inefficiency table to allow for normal developmental changes in gas exchange. Use of these definitions in planning prospective studies of these problems in veterinary patients should allow for more direct comparisons of studies and clinical trials, with a larger goal of improving outcome in veterinary patients.     

A dose‐finding study with a novel water‐soluble formulation of paclitaxel for the treatment of malignant high‐grade solid tumours in dogs

A new formulation of water‐soluble paclitaxel (Paccal® Vet) has been developed for canine cancer patients, without the need for pre‐medication (traditionally required in non‐water‐soluble paclitaxel formulations). The objective of the study was to determine a clinically safe and efficacious dose of Paccal Vet and to estimate progression‐free and overall survival and to evaluate single‐dose pharmacokinetics in tumour‐bearing dogs. A positive risk:benefit ratio was established for Paccal Vet administered at 150 mg m^–2 intravenous (IV) for three or more treatment cycles. Preliminary efficacy was demonstrated by best objective response rate (86%), median time to response (14 days) and median progression‐free survival (131 days). Paccal Vet was associated with expected adverse events (AE) (e.g. myelosuppression), however the majority were transient, clinically silent and manageable. This is the first clinical report of a water‐soluble formulation of paclitaxel suggesting successful administration and being safely used without pre‐medication in dogs.     

ASVCP guidelines: quality assurance for point‐of‐care testing in veterinary medicine

Point‐of‐care testing (POCT) refers to any laboratory testing performed outside the conventional reference laboratory and implies close proximity to patients. Instrumental POCT systems consist of small, handheld or benchtop analyzers. These have potential utility in many veterinary settings, including private clinics, academic veterinary medical centers, the community (eg, remote area veterinary medical teams), and for research applications in academia, government, and industry. Concern about the quality of veterinary in‐clinic testing has been expressed in published veterinary literature; however, little guidance focusing on POCT is available. Recognizing this void, the ASVCP formed a subcommittee in 2009 charged with developing quality assurance (QA) guidelines for veterinary POCT. Guidelines were developed through literature review and a consensus process. Major recommendations include (1) taking a formalized approach to POCT within the facility, (2) use of written policies, standard operating procedures, forms, and logs, (3) operator training, including periodic assessment of skills, (4) assessment of instrument analytical performance and use of both statistical quality control and external quality assessment programs, (5) use of properly established or validated reference intervals, (6) and ensuring accurate patient results reporting. Where possible, given instrument analytical performance, use of a validated 1_3s control rule for interpretation of control data is recommended. These guidelines are aimed at veterinarians and veterinary technicians seeking to improve management of POCT in their clinical or research setting, and address QA of small chemistry and hematology instruments. These guidelines are not intended to be all‐inclusive; rather, they provide a minimum standard for maintenance of POCT instruments in the veterinary setting.     

Veterinary Randomized Clinical Trial Reporting: A Review of the Small Animal Literature

The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is a valuable research method for the evaluation of new treatment and prevention regimens in veterinary medicine. Reporting of clinical trials in other disciplines has not been complete. Without complete information on the conduct and results of a clinical trial, readers cannot optimize their use of the information presented. This report represents an objective review of randomized clinical trials in the veterinary small animal literature from 1986 to 1990. Results indicate that RCT reports in the small animal veterinary literature are incomplete. The importance of reporting on particular aspects of RCT research is described.     

A SURVEY OF RADIOLOGISTS AND REFERRING VETERINARIANS REGARDING IMAGING REPORTS

An imaging report is a vital communication tool between a radiologist and clinician. In a field where in‐person communication may not be readily available, it is imperative that the report clearly relays pertinent clinical information in a timely manner. The purpose of this observational study was to describe and compare opinions and expectations of small animal general practitioners, veterinary specialists, and veterinary radiologists regarding the imaging report. Online surveys were distributed, and data were collected from 202 veterinary clinicians and 123 veterinary radiologists. The majority (89%) of clinicians were satisfied with their imaging reports and stated that they read the radiology report as soon as it was available (92%). Just less than half (48%) of clinicians indicated it was standard of care that a board‐certified veterinary radiologist read all imaging studies. Radiologists and clinicians agreed that a clinical history (98% and 94%, respectively) and clinical question (82% and 68%, respectively) were needed to generate a good radiology report. Fifty‐five percent to 70% of clinicians prefer red bulleted reports, which included incidental findings (96%); while radiologists slightly favored prose reporting (37–46%). Clinicians found it helpful when additional imaging (86%), medical (71%), and surgical recommendations (73%) were made. About one‐third of specialists who had been in practice for >11 years thought they were better able to interpret imaging for their own specialty than the radiologist. Clinicians voiced discontentment with reports that were not completed in a timely manner or did not give a prioritized differential list. Further studies are warranted to provide a more in‐depth evaluation of veterinary radiology reporting structure and style.