BestBETs for Vets: a way to improve the odds of delivering high‐quality care

Dean, Rachel; Mackway‐Jones, Kevin; Wareham, Kathryn; Grindlay, D. J. C.

doi:10.1136/vr.h1593

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One potential solution to this problem could be to ensure the limited relevant evidence is easy to access for the veterinary profession. In recent years, there has been a move towards initiatives, such as Best Evidence Topics (BestBETs) for Vets [ 19 ], which produces freely-available summaries of the evidence on a focused clinical question relevant to veterinary practice, and published the first summary addressing a clinical question about rabbits in 2016 [ 20 ]. Similar initiatives that have also made summaries of the existing evidence available to veterinarians include Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) [ 21 , 22 ] and Knowledge Summaries [ 23 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Veterinarian Nominated Common Conditions of Rabbits and Guinea Pigs Compared with Published Literature

Robinson

Lyons

Grindlay

2017

Veterinary Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rabbits and guinea pigs are increasingly popular pets in the UK, yet little is known about their common ailments, or how these relate to what appears in the published literature. The aim of this study was to characterise the common conditions of rabbits and guinea pigs, and to compare these with the topics found in the published literature. Information about the common conditions seen in rabbits and guinea pigs in clinical practice was obtained from a survey of UK veterinarians. The common conditions seen were compared with results from a structured literature search. Conditions relating to the dental (29.9%), and skin (37.6%) body systems were commonly nominated by veterinarians for rabbits and guinea pigs, respectively. A total of 655 rabbit and 1086 guinea pig citations were examined and there appeared to be a mismatch between the conditions nominated in the veterinary questionnaire, and those found in the literature. This is the first time that the published literature has been compared to the nominated caseload of veterinarians in practice, and there is concern that the literature about rabbits and guinea pigs may not be representative of, or relevant to the caseload seen in clinical practice. This is of importance for clinicians being able to apply an objective, evidence-based approach. The publishing of clinically-relevant, research-based evidence should be prioritised.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Veterinarian Nominated Common Conditions of Rabbits and Guinea Pigs Compared with Published Literature

Robinson

Lyons

Grindlay

2017

Veterinary Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, there is potentially an opportunity for the promotion of easily accessible resources that provide succinct summaries of best evidence. Banfield CATs ( www.banfield.com/veterinary-professionals/resources/research/cats ) and the launch of BestBETs for Vets ( www.bestbetsforvets.org )[ 27 ] since this survey was conducted are two such resources that aim to fill that gap. An apparent preference for passively acquired information may also be due to other factors, such as cost-free accessibility, ease of availability or receipt of resource as part of an existing subscription, although some resources (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Evidence-Based Medicine Survey of the Veterinary Profession: Information Sources Used by Veterinarians

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Veterinarians are encouraged to use evidence to inform their practice, but it is unknown what resources (e.g. journals, electronic sources) are accessed by them globally. Understanding the key places veterinarians seek information can inform where new clinically relevant evidence should most effectively be placed. An international survey was conducted to gain understanding of how veterinary information is accessed by veterinarians worldwide. There were 2137 useable responses to the questionnaire from veterinarians in 78 countries. The majority of respondents (n = 1835/2137, 85.9%) undertook clinical work and worked in a high income country (n = 1576/1762, 89.4%). Respondents heard about the survey via national veterinary organisations or regulatory bodies (31.5%), online veterinary forums and websites (22.7%), regional, discipline-based or international veterinary organisations (22.7%) or by direct invitation from the researchers or via friends, colleagues or social media (7.6%). Clinicians and non-clinicians reportedly used journals most commonly (65.8%, n = 1207/1835; 75.6%, n = 216/286) followed by electronic resources (58.7%, n = 1077/1835; 55.9%, n = 160/286), respectively. Respondents listed a total of 518 journals and 567 electronic sources that they read. Differences in veterinarian preference for resources in developed, and developing countries, were found. The nominated journals most read were the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (12.7% of nominations) for clinicians and the Veterinary Record (5.7%) for non-clinicians. The most accessed electronic resource reported was the Veterinary Information Network (25.6%) for clinicians and PubMed (7.4%) for non-clinicians. In conclusion, a wide array of journals and electronic resources appear to be accessed by veterinarians worldwide. Veterinary organisations appear to play an important role in global communication and outreach to veterinarians and consideration should be given to how these channels could be best utilised for effective dissemination of key research findings.

show abstract

“…Although the CAT methodology is quite structured, there is a degree of choice and flexibility in how the search is carried out, depending on the timespan available and anticipated amount of evidence. To create a search that is broad ("sensitive") yet relevant ("specific"), terms must be combined in an appropriate way (36). Best practice is to combine search terms and their synonyms using the Boolean operators AND and OR (12,37); this programs the online search to retrieve relevant results.…”

Section: Structuring the Search And The Use Of Boolean Operatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…narrative reviews), or are carried out in a non-applied setting (e.g. in vitro research) may be excluded (36). Often if the full text version of a paper is in a language in which the authors are not sufficiently fluent, it is excluded due to the lack of time for translations in the rapid CAT process.…”

Section: Identification Of Relevant Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in Veterinary Medicine: Applying Evidence in Clinical Practice

Arlt

Belshaw²,

Buckley

et al. 2020

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BestBETs for Vets: a way to improve the odds of delivering high‐quality care

Cited by 10 publications

References 4 publications

Veterinarian Nominated Common Conditions of Rabbits and Guinea Pigs Compared with Published Literature

Veterinarian Nominated Common Conditions of Rabbits and Guinea Pigs Compared with Published Literature

International Evidence-Based Medicine Survey of the Veterinary Profession: Information Sources Used by Veterinarians

Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in Veterinary Medicine: Applying Evidence in Clinical Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About