No abstract

Prebiotic supplementation has been studied as a means to enhance growth and health in dairy calves; however, results seem to be inconsistent across studies. The first objective of the future review is to identify, summarize, appraise, and discuss the current literature on the prebiotic supplementation for dairy calves. The second objective is to evaluate the effect of prebiotic supplementation on growth and health of dairy calves. Eligible studies will be non-randomized and randomized controlled trials in English, Spanish, or Portuguese that examined the supplementation of prebiotics to dairy calves (up to 6 months of age) and reported growth or health outcomes. The main growth outcomes will be average daily gain, feed efficiency, and main health outcomes will be fecal score and diarrhea incidence. A search will be conducted in Biosis, CAB Abstracts, Medline, Scopus, and the Dissertations and Theses Database with the support of a UC Davis librarian. Two reviewers independently will screen the titles and abstracts of retrieved studies. The screening of full manuscripts will be performed by one reviewer. The data extraction will be executed based on pre-tested forms. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. If feasible, a random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted. Heterogeneity will be evaluated with I2 statistic. If possible, publication bias will be investigated by using funnel plots, Begg’s adjusted rank correlation, and Egger’s test. The certainty of the evidence will be determined using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach. The proposed review will contribute to the current knowledge on prebiotic supplementation for dairy calves; this information may guide management decision at the farm level and identify gaps of knowledge to be addressed in future research. The protocol is registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ar5g2/) and available in the Systematic Reviews for Animals and Food (http://www.syreaf.org/contact/).

No abstract

No abstract

This is a mapping study conducted to evaluate the characteristics of where content that engages in perspectives or attitudes on female dog spaying is published. Three databases, CAB Direct, PubMed, and Scopus, were systematically searched. There were 84 out of 642 papers identified and screened for relevance on attitudes or perceptions on female canine spaying. These 84 articles were then examined for recurring authors, institutional representation, and publisher information. Additionally, information regarding the population being addressed, veterinarian or client, was noted with most literature addressing the veterinary perspective. Many important articles were published in a wide array of journals from many countries, which suggests the importance of not only browsing journals but also searching for relevant literature in databases like CAB Abstracts and MEDLINE.

Successful search strategies are based on good background knowledge and a focused clinical research question. Due to the multidisciplinary nature of research involving assistance animals means there is no one universal database to answer all research questions. The topic of assistance animals can yield better results when creating subheadings based on discipline focus. Subheadings have been divided into ethicolegal, sociocultural, psychobehavioral, and medical/veterinary. Each subheading, or discipline, has their own specific databases that will yield higher relevant content than others. Contacting local academic librarians and utilizing search guides created by those librarians can lead to successful search strategies. The goal of this article is to create a template for successful search strategies in assistance animals. Eighty-nine subject guides curated by academic librarians are reviewed to identify strong databases for each topic of ethicolegal, sociocultural, pscyhobehavioral, and medical/veterinary topics in relationship to assistance animals. A live subject guide has been created and maintained at https://www.library.ucdavis.edu/guide/assistance-animals/

PICO question Do wild coyotes in the US that are in an urban habitat compared to a rural habitat have a higher prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi seroconversion?   Clinical bottom line Category of research question Prevalence The number and type of study designs reviewed Two papers, both utilising a cross-sectional study design Strength of evidence Zero Outcomes reported The relevant studies provide very limited to no evidence towards answering this PICO question. In one, while the absolute percentage of Borrelia-antibody-positive canines (including dogs in addition to coyotes) is higher in metropolitan areas, the effect was not found to be statistically significant, possibly due to their small sample sizes. In the second study, prevalence of antibodies against Borrelia was compared between different rural habitats, but no urban coyotes were tested as a comparison and thus the PICO question cannot be evaluated Conclusion There is a knowledge gap concerning the prevalence of Borrelia in coyotes and how it differs between urban and rural environments. Wild coyotes could be used as a sentinel species of Lyme disease activity and to assess potential for domestic pet and human infections, which would inform clinical differential diagnoses as well as testing and vaccination recommendations. More studies are needed before this PICO question can be answered in a confident manner   How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.  

<p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p><p>Based on very poor veterinary and human evidence, fluid bags and IV sets should be changed every 96 hours whether on one or multiple patients. Additionally, supportive evidence suggests that creating a routine of wiping ports with alcohol prior to injection or withdrawal may significantly decrease the likelihood of fluid contamination. This certainly seems to be an area that needs more research. <strong></strong></p><br /> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access" /> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed" />