Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27859753›Full record

ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2016

Methods and Processes of Developing the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology - Veterinary (STROBE-Vet) Statement.

J M Sargeant, A M O'Connor, I R Dohoo, H N Erb, M Cevallos, M Egger, A K Ersbøll, S W Martin, L R Nielsen, D L Pearl and 6 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Quality of reporting of clinical trials in dogs and cats: An update.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

J M SargeantCentre for Public Health and Zoonoses, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
A M O'ConnorDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
I R DohooCentre for Veterinary Epidemiological Research, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PEI, Canada.
H N ErbDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
M CevallosInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
M EggerInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
A K ErsbøllNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
S W MartinDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, Guelph, ON, Canada.
L R NielsenSection for Animal Welfare and Disease Control, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
D L PearlDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, Guelph, ON, Canada.
D U PfeifferDepartment of Production and Population Health, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
J SanchezDepartment of Health Management, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PEI, Canada.
M E TorrenceFood and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, College Park, MD.
H VigreUnit for Genomic Epidemiology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
C WaldnerDepartment of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
M P WardFaculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReporting of observational studies in veterinary research presents challenges that often are not addressed in published reporting guidelines.

objectiveTo develop an extension of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement that addresses unique reporting requirements for observational studies in veterinary medicine related to health, production, welfare, and food safety.

designConsensus meeting of experts.

settingMississauga, Canada.

participantsSeventeen experts from North America, Europe, and Australia.

methodsExperts completed a pre-meeting survey about whether items in the STROBE statement should be modified or added to address unique issues related to observational studies in animal species with health, production, welfare, or food safety outcomes. During the meeting, each STROBE item was discussed to determine whether or not rewording was recommended and whether additions were warranted. Anonymous voting was used to determine consensus.

resultsSix items required no modifications or additions. Modifications or additions were made to the STROBE items 1 (title and abstract), 3 (objectives), 5 (setting), 6 (participants), 7 (variables), 8 (data sources/measurement), 9 (bias), 10 (study size), 12 (statistical methods), 13 (participants), 14 (descriptive data), 15 (outcome data), 16 (main results), 17 (other analyses), 19 (limitations), and 22 (funding).

conclusionThe methods and processes used were similar to those used for other extensions of the STROBE statement. The use of this STROBE statement extension should improve reporting of observational studies in veterinary research by recognizing unique features of observational studies involving food-producing and companion animals, products of animal origin, aquaculture, and wildlife.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicObservational Studies, Veterinary as TopicResearch ReportAnimal HusbandryAnimalsEpidemiologic MethodsResearch DesignVeterinary MedicineAnimal HealthAnimal Reporting guidelinesAnimal welfareFood SafetyObservational studiesProduction

Identifiers

PMID27859753
PMCPMC5115188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.