Background Influenza A viruses of swine (IAV-S) are a global zoonotic and economic concern. Primary control is through vaccination yet a formal evidence map summarizing vaccine research conducted in pigs is not available. Objective Ten characteristics of English language primary IAV-S vaccine research, conducted at the level of the pig or higher, were charted to identify research gaps, topics for systematic review, and coverage across different publication types. Design Six online databases and grey literature were searched, without geographic, population, or study type restrictions, and abstracts screened independently and in duplicate for relevant research published between 1990 and May 2018. Full text data was charted by a single reviewer. Results Over 11,000 unique citations were screened, identifying 376 for charting, including 175 proceedings from 60 conferences, and 170 journal articles from 51 journals. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous with measures of immunity (86%, n = 323) and virus detection (65%, n = 246) reported far more than production metrics (9%, n = 32). Study of transmissibility under conditions of natural exposure (n = 7), use of mathematical modelling (n = 11), and autogenous vaccine research reported in journals (n = 7), was limited. Conclusions Most research used challenge trials (n = 219) and may have poor field relevance or suitability for systematic review if the purpose is to inform clinical decisions. Literature on vaccinated breeding herds (n = 89) and weaned pigs (n = 136) is potentially sufficient for systematic review. Research under field conditions is limited, disproportionately reported in conference proceedings versus journal articles, and may be insufficient to support systematic review.
Background Food animal veterinarians face commodity specific and urgent global challenges yet conditions preventing use of best available knowledge have been sparsely studied. The American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) membership (N = 1289) was surveyed online to benchmark their information priorities and their motivations and sources for keeping current with infectious disease research, and to describe their reported time, skill, access, and process as barriers to knowledge translation (KT). Results Respondents (n = 80) were mostly from Canada (n = 40) and the U.S.A (n = 31) and demographics approximated the AASV’s. Colleagues are the first choice for information on difficult cases (49%, 95%CI: 38–61). Half of respondents (53%, 95%CI: 41–64) spend an hour or less per week keeping up with infectious disease research. The majority reported moderate or less than moderate efficiency (62%, 95%CI: 51–72), and moderate or greater stress (59%, 95%CI: 48–70) with their process for keeping up. Journal article methods sections are commonly not read, almost a third (32%, 95% CI: 22–43) reported either they do not evaluate statistical methods or that they had poor confidence to do so, and half (52, 95%CI: 41–63) could not explain ‘confounding bias’. Approximately half (55%, 95%CI: 41-69) with direct oversight of swine herds had full access to 2 or fewer academic journals. Approximately a third of respondents (34%, 95%CI: 24–46) selected only formats involving single research studies (either full text or summaries) as preferred reading materials for keeping current over expert summaries of the body of evidence. Conclusion KT barriers are considerable and a source of stress for many swine veterinarians. Sub-optimal efficiency with keeping up and low confidence to appraise aspects of research are concerns. Results are consistent with previous literature and illustrate need for improved KT infrastructure and for additional training in statistical methods and interpretation of primary research. Further evaluation is warranted of why approximately a third of veterinarians in this study, for the purpose of keeping up, preferentially choose to review individual research studies over choices that would include an expert summary of the body of evidence. Consideration of reasons for this preference will be important in the planning of KT infrastructure improvements.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.