BackgroundClinical audit is a quality improvement process with the goal of continuously improving quality of patient care as assessed by explicit criteria. In human medicine clinical audit has become an integral and required component of the standard of care. In contrast, in veterinary medicine there appear to have been a limited number of clinical audits published, indicating that while clinical audit is recognised, its adoption in veterinary medicine is still in its infancy. A systematic review was designed to report and evaluate the veterinary literature on clinical audit in companion animal species (dog, cat, horse). A systematic search of English and French articles using Proquest Dissertations and Theses database (February 6, 2014), CAB Abstracts (March 21, 2014 and April 4, 2014), Scopus (March 21, 2014), Web of Science Citation index (March 21, 2014) and OVID Medline (March 21, 2014) was performed. Included articles were those either discussing clinical audit (such as review articles and editorials) or reporting parts of, or complete, audit cycles.ResultsThe majority of articles describing clinical audit were reviews. From 89 articles identified, twenty-one articles were included and available for review. Twelve articles were reviews of clinical audit in veterinary medicine, five articles included at least one veterinary clinical audit, one thesis was identified, one report was of a veterinary clinical audit website and two articles reported incomplete clinical audits. There was no indication of an increase in the number of published clinical audits since the first report in 1998. However, there was evidence of article misclassification, with studies fulfilling the criteria of clinical audit not appropriately recognised. Quality of study design and reporting of findings varied considerably, with information missing on key components, including duration of study, changes in practice implemented between audits, development of explicit criteria and appropriate statistical analyses.ConclusionsAvailable evidence suggests the application and reporting of clinical audit in veterinary medicine is sporadic despite the potential to improve patient care, though the true incidence of clinical audit reporting is likely to be underestimated due to incorrect indexing. Reporting standards of clinical audits are highly variable, limiting evaluation, application and repeatability of published work.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12917-016-0661-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveComplete, accurate reporting of systematic reviews facilitates assessment of how well reviews have been conducted. The primary objective of this study was to examine compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for literature search reporting and to examine the completeness, bias, and reproducibility of the searches in these reviews from what was reported. The second objective was to examine reporting of the credentials and contributions of those involved in the search process.MethodsA sample of systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in veterinary journals between 2011 and 2015 was obtained by searching PubMed. Reporting in the full text of each review was checked against certain PRISMA checklist items.ResultsOver one-third of reviews (37%) did not search the CAB Abstracts database, and 9% of reviews searched only 1 database. Over two-thirds of reviews (65%) did not report any search for grey literature or stated that they excluded grey literature. The majority of reviews (95%) did not report a reproducible search strategy.ConclusionsMost reviews had significant deficiencies in reporting the search process that raise questions about how these searches were conducted and ultimately cast serious doubts on the validity and reliability of reviews based on a potentially biased and incomplete body of literature. These deficiencies also highlight the need for veterinary journal editors and publishers to be more rigorous in requiring adherence to PRISMA guidelines and to encourage veterinary researchers to include librarians or information specialists on systematic review teams to improve the quality and reporting of searches.

In human medicine, the information infrastructure that supports the knowledge translation processes of exchange, synthesis, dissemination, and application of the best clinical intervention research has developed significantly in the past 15 years, facilitating the uptake of research evidence by clinicians as well as the practice of evidence-based medicine. Seven of the key elements of this improved information infrastructure are clinical trial registries, research reporting standards, systematic reviews, organizations that support the production of systematic reviews, the indexing of clinical intervention research in MEDLINE, clinical search filters for MEDLINE, and point-of-care decision support information resources. The objective of this paper is to describe why these elements are important for evidence-based medicine, the key developments and issues related to these seven information infrastructure elements in human medicine, how these 7 elements compare with the corresponding infrastructure elements in veterinary medicine, and how all of these factors affect the translation of clinical intervention research into clinical practice. A focused search of the Ovid MEDLINE database was conducted for English language journal literature published between 2000 and 2010. Two bibliographies were consulted and selected national and international Web sites were searched using Google. The literature reviewed indicates that the information infrastructure supporting evidence-based veterinary medicine practice in all of the 7 elements reviewed is significantly underdeveloped in relation to the corresponding information infrastructure in human medicine. This lack of development creates barriers to the timely translation of veterinary medicine research into clinical practice and also to the conduct of both primary clinical intervention research and synthesis research.

We determined the Web-based configurations that are applied to teach medical and veterinary communication skills, evaluated their effectiveness, and suggested future educational directions for Web-based communication teaching in veterinary education. We performed a systematic search of CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE, Scopus, and ERIC limited to articles published in English between 2000 and 2012. The review focused on medical or veterinary undergraduate to clinical- or residency-level students. We selected studies for which the study population was randomized to the Web-based learning (WBL) intervention with a post-test comparison with another WBL or non-WBL method and that reported at least one empirical outcome. Two independent reviewers completed relevancy screening, data extraction, and synthesis of results using Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick's framework. The search retrieved 1,583 articles, and 10 met the final inclusion criteria. We identified no published articles on Web based communication platforms in veterinary medicine; however, publications summarized from human medicine demonstrated that WBL provides a potentially reliable and valid approach for teaching and assessing communication skills. Student feedback on the use of virtual patients for teaching clinical communication skills has been positive,though evidence has suggested that practice with virtual patients prompted lower relation-building responses.Empirical outcomes indicate that WBL is a viable method for expanding the approach to teaching history taking and possibly to additional tasks of the veterinary medical interview.

No abstract