ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2020
Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews, and Meta-Analysis: Applications in Veterinary Medicine.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Drinking water intake in feedlot cattle: a meta-analysis.Journal of animal science · 2026Pooled it
- Burden of Bovine Tuberculosis on Animal Health, Welfare and Production: A Systematic Review.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Foot-and-mouth disease reproduction number: a scoping review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Pooled it
- Recent advances in examining the factors influencing the efficacy of biocides against Listeria monocytogenes biofilms in the food industry: A systematic review.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025Pooled it
- Milk proteins as mastitis markers in dairy ruminants - a systematic review.Veterinary research communications · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of virtual water trade on freshwater pollution in trading partners: a systematic literature review.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Pooled it
- Measuring visual and quality of life outcomes in nystagmus: a scoping review.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Targeting the Gut-Brain Axis: Pharmacological Modulation of the Microbiome for Neurological and Behavioural Disorders in Companion Animals.Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Review
- Farmer-veterinarian interaction as multi-level situated learning: Negotiating health, risk, and responsibility in intensive pig farming - a scoping review.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Review
- A Teaching Reform Practice to Improve Research Literacy of Veterinary Postgraduate Students Based on Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Multimodal (Bio)Markers and Risk of Obesity - A Comprehensive Scoping Review.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- Exploring definitions of porcine respiratory disease complex in the literature: a scoping review protocol.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Application of Biomarkers in Spinal Muscular Atrophy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Antibiotic Treatment vs. Non-Antibiotic Treatment in Bovine Clinical Mastitis During Lactation with Mild and Moderate Severity.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Applications of Spatial Transcriptomics in Veterinary Medicine: A Scoping Review of Research, Diagnostics, and Treatment Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Advancing occupational therapy scoping reviews: Recommendations to enhance quality and methodological rigour.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Transdisciplinary approaches to addressing factors that influence antimicrobial use in dairy cattle: A scoping review.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence-based decision making is a hallmark of effective veterinary clinical practice. Scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses all are methods intended to provide transparent and replicable ways of summarizing a body of research to address an important clinical or public health issue. As these methods increasingly are being used by researchers and read by practitioners, it is important to understand the distinction between these techniques and to understand what research questions they can, and cannot, address. This review provides an overview of scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis, including a discussion of the method and uses. A sample dataset and coding to conduct a simple meta-analysis in the statistical program R also are provided. Scoping reviews are a descriptive approach, designed to chart the literature around a particular topic. The approach involves an extensive literature search, following by a structured mapping, or charting, of the literature. The results of scoping reviews can help to inform future research by identifying gaps in the existing literature and also can be used to identify areas where there may be a sufficient depth of literature to warrant a systematic review. Systematic reviews are intended to address a specific question by identifying and summarizing all of the available research that has addressed the review question. Questions types that can be addressed by a systematic review include prevalence/incidence questions, and questions related to etiology, intervention efficacy, and diagnostic test accuracy. The systematic review process follows structured steps with multiple reviewers working in parallel to reduce the potential for bias. An extensive literature search is undertaken and, for each relevant study identified by the search, a formal extraction of data, including the effect size, and assessment of the risk of bias is performed. The results from multiple studies can be combined using meta-analysis. Meta-analysis provides a summary effect size, and allows heterogeneity of effect among studies to be quantified and explored. These evidence synthesis approaches can provide scientific input to evidence-based clinical decision-making for veterinarians and regulatory bodies, and also can be useful for identifying gaps in the literature to enhance the efficiency of future research in a topic area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.