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

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

Effect of Oral Meloxicam on Health and Performance of Beef Steers Relative to Bulls Castrated on Arrival at the Feedlot

Castration in weaned calves is stressful and affects profitability by reducing ADG and increasing susceptibility to disease. This study evaluated the effect of meloxicam, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), on performance and health of calves received as steers compared with bull calves surgically castrated on arrival at the feedlot. British × Continental bulls (n = 145) and steers (n = 113; BW = 193 to 285 kg) were transported for 12 h in 3 truckloads (d 0), weighed, and randomly assigned to receive either lactose placebo (CONT; 1 mg/kg) or meloxicam (MEL; 1 mg/kg) suspended in water and administered per os, 24 h before castration. On d 1, bulls were surgically castrated (CAST) and steers were processed without castration (STR). Combinations of CONT/MEL and CAST/STR were allocated to 24 pens (6 pens per treatment) of 8 to 14 calves each. Pen was the experimental unit. Plasma meloxicam concentrations at the time of castration (d 1) were determined by HPLC-mass spectroscopy. Pen-level ADG, DMI, and G:F were estimated using BW obtained on d 0, 14, and 28 and weigh-back of feed. Individual animals were classified as sick based on a depression score of ≥2 on a 5-point scale and a rectal temperature of ≥39.8°C. On d 0, 1, and 14, calf chute temperament was evaluated using a 4-point scale. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models and survival curve analyses. Castration reduced pen ADG (P \u3c 0.001) and G:F (P \u3c 0.001) from d 1 to 14, yet no effects (P \u3e 0.45) were apparent by d 28. For all treatment groups, DMI increased with days on feed (P \u3c 0.0001) but was less in CAST compared with STR calves (P \u3c 0.016) throughout the study. From d 15 to 28, ADG increased (P = 0.0011) in CAST but not STR calves, and G:F decreased (P = 0.0004) in STR but not CAST calves. In CAST calves only, MEL treatment reduced the pen-level first pull rate (P = 0.04) and reduced bovine respiratory disease morbidity rate (P = 0.03). The frequency of chute escape behavior was greater on arrival and at castration in CAST vs. STR calves (P \u3c 0.01) but not significantly different at d 14 (P = 0.22). Mean MEL concentrations at castration were no different between treated STR and CAST calves (P = 0.70). Meloxicam administration before castration in postweaning calves reduced the incidence of respiratory disease at the feedlot. These findings have implications for developing NSAID protocols for use in calves at castration with respect to addressing animal health and welfare concerns

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