Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28978314›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2017

Sample size and number of outcome measures of veterinary randomised controlled trials of pharmaceutical interventions funded by different sources, a cross-sectional study.

K J Wareham, R M Hyde, D Grindlay, M L Brennan, R S Dean

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

5 authors.

K J WarehamCentre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK.
R M HydeCentre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK.
D GrindlayCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, The University of Nottingham, King's Meadow Campus Lenton Lane, Nottingham, NG7 2NR, UK.
M L BrennanCentre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK.
R S DeanCentre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK. Rachel.dean@nottingham.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are a key component of the veterinary evidence base. Sample sizes and defined outcome measures are crucial components of RCTs. To describe the sample size and number of outcome measures of veterinary RCTs either funded by the pharmaceutical industry or not, published in 2011.

methodsA structured search of PubMed identified RCTs examining the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions. Number of outcome measures, number of animals enrolled per trial, whether a primary outcome was identified, and the presence of a sample size calculation were extracted from the RCTs. The source of funding was identified for each trial and groups compared on the above parameters.

resultsLiterature searches returned 972 papers; 86 papers comprising 126 individual trials were analysed. The median number of outcomes per trial was 5.0; there were no significant differences across funding groups (p = 0.133). The median number of animals enrolled per trial was 30.0; this was similar across funding groups (p = 0.302). A primary outcome was identified in 40.5% of trials and was significantly more likely to be stated in trials funded by a pharmaceutical company. A very low percentage of trials reported a sample size calculation (14.3%).

conclusionsFailure to report primary outcomes, justify sample sizes and the reporting of multiple outcome measures was a common feature in all of the clinical trials examined in this study. It is possible some of these factors may be affected by the source of funding of the studies, but the influence of funding needs to be explored with a larger number of trials. Some veterinary RCTs provide a weak evidence base and targeted strategies are required to improve the quality of veterinary RCTs to ensure there is reliable evidence on which to base clinical decisions.

Indexed as

Capital FinancingOutcome Assessment, Health CareSample SizeAnimalsCross-Sectional StudiesDrug TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicClinical trialsEvidence based medicinePrimary outcomeQualityStudy design and data analysis

Identifiers

PMID28978314
PMCPMC5628436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.