RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CULLING AGE IN DAIRY CATTLE: APPLICATIONS OF FRAILTY MODELS

Culling decisions for dairy cattle are an important component of dairy herd management. To investigate risk factors for culling, farms (clusters) constitute the sampling units. Therefore, we believe that ages-at-culling may be correlated within farms. The score test on the null hypothesis of no extra-variation in survival data was not supported by age-at-culling data collected from 72 dairy farms from the province of Ontario, Canada. To correct for the intraherd correlation, three modelling approaches were used to fit the data: Population-Averaged (PA) , cluster-specific (CS), and Random Effects Models (RAEM). The modelling approaches are described and compared using the dairy cow culling data

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

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

The standards of reporting randomized trials in pets (PetSORT): Methods and development processes

BackgroundReporting of clinical trials conducted in client- and shelter-owned dog and cat populations is not optimal, which inhibits the ability to assess the reliability and validity of trial findings and precludes the ability to include some trials in evidence synthesis.ObjectiveTo develop a reporting guideline for parallel group and crossover trials that addresses the unique features and reporting requirements for trials conducted in client- and shelter-owned dog and cat populations.DesignConsensus statement.SettingVirtual.ParticipantsFifty-six experts from North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia working in academia, government (research and regulatory agencies), industry, and clinical veterinary practice.MethodsA steering committee created a draft checklist for reporting criteria based upon the CONSORT statement and the CONSORT extensions for reporting of abstracts and crossover trials. Each item was presented to the expert participants and was modified and presented again until >85% of participants were in agreement about the inclusion and wording of each item in the checklist.ResultsThe final PetSORT checklist consists of 25 main items with several sub-items. Most items were modifications of items contained in the CONSORT 2010 checklist or the CONSORT extension for crossover trials, but 1 sub-item pertaining to euthanasia was created de novo.ConclusionThe methods and processes used to develop this guideline represent a novel departure from those used to create other reporting guidelines, by using a virtual format. The use of the PetSORT statement should improve reporting of trials conducted in client- and shelter-owned dogs and cats and published in the veterinary research literature

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

The Influence of Climate and Livestock Reservoirs on Human Cases of Giardiasis.

Giardia duodenalis is an intestinal parasite which causes diarrhoeal illness in people. Zoonotic subtypes found in livestock may contribute to human disease occurrence through runoff of manure into multi-use surface water. This study investigated temporal associations among selected environmental variables and G. duodenalis occurrence in livestock reservoirs on human giardiasis incidence using data collected in the Waterloo Health Region, Ontario, Canada. The study objectives were to: (1) evaluate associations between human cases and environmental variables between 1 June 2006 and 31 December 2013, and (2) evaluate associations between human cases, environmental variables and livestock reservoirs using a subset of this time series, with both analyses controlling for seasonal and long-term trends. Human disease incidence exhibited a seasonal trend but no annual trend. A Poisson multivariable regression model identified an inverse association with water level lagged by 1 month (IRR = 0.10, 95% CI 0.01, 0.85, P < 0.05). Case crossover analysis found varying associations between lagged variables including livestock reservoirs (1 week), mean air temperature (3 weeks), river water level (1 week) and flow rate (1 week), and precipitation (4 weeks). This study contributes to our understanding of epidemiologic relationships influencing human giardiasis cases in Ontario, Canada

Observational Study Design in Veterinary Pathology, Part 1: Study Design

Observational studies are the basis for much of our knowledge of veterinary pathology and are highly relevant to the daily practice of pathology. However, recommendations for conducting pathology-based observational studies are not readily available. In part 1 of this series, we offer advice on planning and conducting an observational study with examples from the veterinary pathology literature. Investigators should recognize the importance of creativity, insight, and innovation in devising studies that solve problems and fill important gaps in knowledge. Studies should focus on specific and testable hypotheses, questions, or objectives. The methodology is developed to support these goals. We consider the merits and limitations of different types of analytic and descriptive studies, as well as of prospective vs retrospective enrollment. Investigators should define clear inclusion and exclusion criteria and select adequate numbers of study subjects, including careful selection of the most appropriate controls. Studies of causality must consider the temporal relationships between variables and the advantages of measuring incident cases rather than prevalent cases. Investigators must consider unique aspects of studies based on archived laboratory case material and take particular care to consider and mitigate the potential for selection bias and information bias. We close by discussing approaches to adding value and impact to observational studies. Part 2 of the series focuses on methodology and validation of methods

Checklist for One Health epidemiological reporting of evidence (COHERE)

One Health is defined as the intersection and integration of knowledge regarding humans, animals, and the environment, yet as the One Health scientific literature expands, there is considerable heterogeneity of approach and quality of reporting in One Health studies. In addition, many researchers who publish such studies do not include or integrate data from all three domains of human, animal, and environmental health. This points to a critical need to unify guidelines for One Health studies. This report details the Checklist for One Health Epidemiological Reporting of Evidence (COHERE) to guide the design and publication format of future One Health studies. COHERE was developed by a core writing team and international expert review group that represents multiple disciplines, including human medicine, veterinary medicine, public health, allied professionals, clinical laboratory science, epidemiology, the social sciences, ecohealth and environmental health. The twin aims of the COHERE standards are to 1) improve the quality of reporting of observational or interventional epidemiological studies that collect and integrate data from humans, animals and/or vectors, and their environments; and 2) promote the concept that One Health studies should integrate knowledge from these three domains. The 19 standards in the COHERE checklist address descriptions of human populations, animal populations, environmental assessment, spatial and temporal relationships of data from the three domains, integration of analyses and interpretation, and inclusion of expertise in the research team from disciplines related to human health, animal health, and environmental health

Comparative efficacy of antimicrobials for treatment of clinical mastitis in lactating dairy cattle: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the relative efficacy of antimicrobial therapy for clinical mastitis in lactating dairy cattle. Controlled trials in lactating dairy cattle with natural disease exposure were eligible if they compared an antimicrobial treatment to a non-treated control, placebo, or a different antimicrobial, for the treatment of clinical mastitis, and assessed clinical or bacteriologic cure. Potential for bias was assessed using a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. From 14775 initially identified records, 54 trials were assessed as eligible. Networks were established for bacteriologic cure by bacterial species group, and clinical cure. Disparate networks among bacteriologic cures precluded meta-analysis. Network meta-analysis was conducted for trials assessing clinical cure, but lack of precision of point estimates resulted in wide credibility intervals for all treatments, with no definitive conclusions regarding relative efficacy. Consideration of network geometry can inform future research to increase the utility of current and previous work. Replication of intervention arms and consideration of connection to existing networks would improve the future ability to determine relative efficacy. Challenges in the evaluation of bias in primary research stemmed from a lack of reporting. Consideration of reporting guidelines would also improve the utility of future research