Where are the veterinarian shortage areas anyway?

This paper describes an econometric model to evaluate factors associated with a county’s likelihood of being designated as a private practice shortage area under the United States' Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP). Study determinants of equilibrium food animal veterinarian location choices were also evaluated and used as a benchmark to assess the shortage designation process. On the whole the program appears to perform quite well. For several states, however, VMLRP shortage designations are inconsistent with the model of food animal veterinarian shortages. Comparative shortage is generally more severe in states that have no VMLRP designated private practice shortage counties than in states that do.economic externalities, food animal veterinarians, loan repayment program, Agricultural and Food Policy, Livestock Production/Industries,

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

A focus on cross-purpose tools, automated recognition of study design in multiple disciplines, and evaluation of automation tools: a summary of significant discussions at the fourth meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR)

The fourth meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) was held 5–6 November 2019 in The Hague, the Netherlands. ICASR is an interdisciplinary group whose goal is to maximize the use of technology for conducting rapid, accurate, and efficient systematic reviews of scientific evidence. The group seeks to facilitate the development and acceptance of automated techniques for systematic reviews. In 2018, the major themes discussed were the transferability of automation tools (i.e., tools developed for other purposes that might be used by systematic reviewers), the automated recognition of study design in multiple disciplines and applications, and approaches for the evaluation of automation tools

A question of trust: can we build an evidence base to gain trust in systematic review automation technologies?

Background Although many aspects of systematic reviews use computational tools, systematic reviewers have been reluctant to adopt machine learning tools. Discussion We discuss that the potential reason for the slow adoption of machine learning tools into systematic reviews is multifactorial. We focus on the current absence of trust in automation and set-up challenges as major barriers to adoption. It is important that reviews produced using automation tools are considered non-inferior or superior to current practice. However, this standard will likely not be sufficient to lead to widespread adoption. As with many technologies, it is important that reviewers see “others” in the review community using automation tools. Adoption will also be slow if the automation tools are not compatible with workflows and tasks currently used to produce reviews. Many automation tools being developed for systematic reviews mimic classification problems. Therefore, the evidence that these automation tools are non-inferior or superior can be presented using methods similar to diagnostic test evaluations, i.e., precision and recall compared to a human reviewer. However, the assessment of automation tools does present unique challenges for investigators and systematic reviewers, including the need to clarify which metrics are of interest to the systematic review community and the unique documentation challenges for reproducible software experiments. Conclusion We discuss adoption barriers with the goal of providing tool developers with guidance as to how to design and report such evaluations and for end users to assess their validity. Further, we discuss approaches to formatting and announcing publicly available datasets suitable for assessment of automation technologies and tools. Making these resources available will increase trust that tools are non-inferior or superior to current practice. Finally, we identify that, even with evidence that automation tools are non-inferior or superior to current practice, substantial set-up challenges remain for main stream integration of automation into the systematic review process

The Change in Prevalence of Campylobacter on Chicken Carcasses During Processing: A Systematic Review

A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the change in prevalence of Campylobacter on chicken carcasses during processing. A structured literature search of 8 electronic databases using the key words for Campylobacter, chicken, and processing identified 1,734 unique citations. Abstracts were screened for relevance by 2 independent reviewers. Thirty-two studies described prevalence at more than one stage during processing and were included in this review. Of the studies that described the prevalence of Campylobacter on carcasses before and after specific stages of processing, the chilling stage had the greatest number of studies (9), followed by washing (6), defeathering (4), scalding (2), and evisceration (1). Studies that sampled before and after scalding or chilling, or both, showed that the prevalence of Campylobacter generally decreased immediately after the stage (scalding: 20.0 to 40.0% decrease; chilling: 100.0% decrease to 26.6% increase). The prevalence of Campylobacter increased after defeathering (10.0 to 72.0%) and evisceration (15.0%). The prevalence after washing was inconsistent among studies (23.0% decrease to 13.3% increase). Eleven studies reported the concentration of Campylobacter, as well as, or instead of, the prevalence. Studies that sampled before and after specific stages of processing showed that the concentration of Campylobacter decreased after scalding (minimum decrease of 1.3 cfu/g, maximum decrease of 2.9 cfu/mL), evisceration (0.3 cfu/g), washing (minimum 0.3 cfu/mL, maximum 1.1 cfu/mL), and chilling (minimum 0.2 cfu/g, maximum 1.7 cfu/carcass) and increased after defeathering (minimum 0.4 cfu/g, maximum 2.9 cfu/mL). Available evidence is sparse and suggests more data are needed to understand the magnitude and mechanism by which the prevalence and concentration of Campylobacter changes during processing. This understanding should help researchers and program developers identify the most likely points in processing to implement effective control efforts. For example, if contamination will occur during defeathering and likely during evisceration, critical control points postevisceration are likely to have a greater effect on the end product going to the consumer

Study protocol: Reporting characteristics of intervention trials of animals published in the Journal of Dairy Science in 2017

Objectives The scope of this cross-sectional observational study is to evaluate prevalence of reporting the 19 objective items of the REFLECT statement checklist (Sargeant et al., 2010), with the primary outcome being prevalence of sample size calculation, in clinical trials published in the Journal of Dairy Science from January to December of 2017. We will also determine risk of bias in individual studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tools for individually randomized, parallel group trials; cluster randomized, parallel group trials; and individually randomized, cross-over trials (Higgins et al., 2016)

Standards for reporting clinical trials: The CONSORT statement for clinical trials in livestock. Application to food safety

Recently reviews of interventions studies in pre-harvest food safety have identified issues with lack of reporting of key methodological quality features and items necessary for interpretation and replication of trial findings. In human medicine, similar issues with the reporting of clinical trials were identified 10-15 years ago. This led to the publication of the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, which consists of a 22-item checklist of items that should be reported when publishing a clinical trial, a flow diagram to describe participant movement at all stages of a trial, and an explanation and elaboration document

Levels of Evidence, Quality Assessment, and Risk of Bias: Evaluating the Internal Validity of Primary Research

Clinical decisions in human and veterinary medicine should be based on the best available evidence. The results of primary research are an important component of that evidence base. Regardless of whether assessing studies for clinical case management, developing clinical practice guidelines, or performing systematic reviews, evidence from primary research should be evaluated for internal validity i.e., whether the results are free from bias (reflect the truth). Three broad approaches to evaluating internal validity are available: evaluating the potential for bias in a body of literature based on the study designs employed (levels of evidence), evaluating whether key study design features associated with the potential for bias were employed (quality assessment), and applying a judgement as to whether design elements of a study were likely to result in biased results given the specific context of the study (risk of bias assessment). The level of evidence framework for assessing internal validity assumes that internal validity can be determined based on the study design alone, and thus makes the strongest assumptions. Risk of bias assessments involve an evaluation of the potential for bias in the context of a specific study, and thus involve the least assumptions about internal validity. Quality assessment sits somewhere between the assumptions of these two. Because risk of bias assessment involves the least assumptions, this approach should be used to assess internal validity where possible. However, risk of bias instruments are not available for all study designs, some clinical questions may be addressed using multiple study designs, and some instruments that include an evaluation of internal validity also include additional components (e.g., evaluation of comprehensiveness of reporting, assessments of feasibility or an evaluation of external validity). Therefore, it may be necessary to embed questions related to risk of bias within existing quality assessment instruments. In this article, we overview the approaches to evaluating internal validity, highlight the current complexities, and propose ideas for approaching assessments of internal validity

Review: Assessment of completeness of reporting in intervention studies using livestock: an example from pain mitigation interventions in neonatal piglets

Accurate and complete reporting of study methods, results and interpretation are essential components for any scientific process, allowing end-users to evaluate the internal and external validity of a study. When animals are used in research, excellence in reporting is expected as a matter of continued ethical acceptability of animal use in the sciences. Our primary objective was to assess completeness of reporting for a series of studies relevant to mitigation of pain in neonatal piglets undergoing routine management procedures. Our second objective was to illustrate how authors can report the items in the Reporting guidElines For randomized controLled trials for livEstoCk and food safety (REFLECT) statement using examples from the animal welfare science literature. A total of 52 studies from 40 articles were evaluated using a modified REFLECT statement. No single study reported all REFLECT checklist items. Seven studies reported specific objectives with testable hypotheses. Six studies identified primary or secondary outcomes. Randomization and blinding were considered to be partially reported in 21 and 18 studies, respectively. No studies reported the rationale for sample sizes. Several studies failed to report key design features such as units for measurement, means, standard deviations, standard errors for continuous outcomes or comparative characteristics for categorical outcomes expressed as either rates or proportions. In the discipline of animal welfare science, authors, reviewers and editors are encouraged to use available reporting guidelines to ensure that scientific methods and results are adequately described and free of misrepresentations and inaccuracies. Complete and accurate reporting increases the ability to apply the results of studies to the decision-making process and prevent wastage of financial and animal resources

The standards of reporting trials in pets (PetSORT): Explanation and elaboration

Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence of the primary research designs for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. However, if RCTs are incompletely reported, the methodological rigor with which they were conducted cannot be reliably evaluated and it may not be possible to replicate the intervention. Missing information also may limit the reader's ability to evaluate the external validity of a trial. Reporting guidelines are available for clinical trials in human healthcare (CONSORT), livestock populations (REFLECT), and preclinical experimental research involving animals (ARRIVE 2.0). The PetSORT guidelines complement these existing guidelines, providing recommendations for reporting controlled trials in pet dogs and cats. The rationale and scientific background are explained for each of the 25 items in the PetSORT reporting recommendations checklist, with examples from well-reported trials