ArticlePloS one2025
Contributing to evidence-based veterinary medicine: A qualitative study of veterinary professionals' views and experiences of client-owned companion animal research.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research on the outcomes of veterinary treatments in dogs, cats and horses has important benefits for these animals and their owners. However, this information is not always available, and the evidence base is often lower-quality than in human medicine. To identify ways to improve the generation of evidence, we investigated the views of veterinary professionals about research involving companion animal patients and their owners. This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with veterinary surgeons and registered veterinary nurses working in UK companion animal clinical practice. Interviews were conducted with 20 veterinary professionals from different clinical settings including both those with and without previous experience of research involving animals. Analyses revealed that veterinary professionals valued evidence-based information to help them make informed decisions about treatment with owners. However, there was often not enough available evidence. Veterinary professionals were willing to help produce this research evidence. However, lack of time and resources were key challenges and in addition, they did not always feel they had the necessary research skills, experience and support. Some participants also found it difficult to discuss participation in research with owners of their veterinary patients. They also had concerns about the amount and type of extra information they would need to give to owners. Veterinary professionals also faced a dilemma as their key role is to protect the welfare of animals that they treat, yet felt that there was the potential for some animals assigned to receive a specific treatment as part of a research study to be disadvantaged. Companion animal research has important benefits for veterinary patients, their owners and for veterinary professionals. Based on our findings, more funding, improved research training, resources, support networks and changes to current regulations are needed. Improved evidence would assist veterinary professionals and owners when making informed decisions around veterinary care.
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.