Evidence‐based veterinary dermatology: a systematic review of interventions for treatment ofPseudomonasotitis in dogs

Abstract

The efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions to treat canine Pseudomonas otitis externa and media were evaluated based on the systematic review of clinical trials published between 1967 and 2006. Clinical trials were included if Pseudomonas species were cultured from the ears of dogs with otitis externa or otitis media prior to treatment, and if the outcome of these interventions was reported at the end of the study. Studies were compared with regard to design characteristics (randomization generation and concealment, masking, intention-to-treat analyses), benefit (microbiological and/or clinical resolution of the Pseudomonas otitis), and adverse effects. Ten trials reporting data on 162 patients and 13 different pharmacological interventions were identified. Based on the accepted criteria for quality of evidence, there is insufficient evidence for or against recommending the use of any of these treatments for Pseudomonas otitis in dogs. This is largely because there is only one trial supporting the use of each treatment option and none were randomized controlled trials. Future studies need to be prospective, randomized, blinded and controlled; designed to evaluate pharmacological interventions for otitis regardless of the infective organism; have appropriate statistical advice on recruitment numbers, the power of the study and appropriate statistical analysis; include details of underlying conditions and concomitant treatments; and be designed such that inclusion criteria include microbial culture and antimicrobial sensitivity, and outcome assessments include clinical examination, cytology and microbial culture.

Quality of Reporting of Clinical Trials of Dogs and Cats and Associations with Treatment Effects

“…This is consistent with the observations of trial quality from systematic reviews of trials involving dogs and cats. [3][4][5][6] Our appraisal template was based on the CONSORT statement, which was developed to include items where there was empirical evidence of an association with bias in studies in human medicine, or where the information was deemed essential by the CONSORT development group for evaluating the external validity of trial findings. 22 The descriptive results (Table 1) serve as a guide to trial components that are poorly reported and require consideration when writing trial reports for publication.…”

“…2 Authors of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions in dogs and cats also have reported shortcomings in the reporting of key features in the published research. [3][4][5][6] Numerous studies have reported shortcomings in the reporting of important methodological features of clinical trials in human clinical research. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Trials conducted without sound methodology are associated with biased treatment effects.…”

In vitro antimicrobial activity of a gel containing antimicrobial peptide AMP2041, chlorhexidine digluconate and Tris‐EDTA on clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa from canine otitis

“…Otitis is believed to be multifactorial and treatment can be difficult in some cases. [1][2][3] Common organisms isolated from dogs with otitis externa include Staphylococcus spp., Pseudomonas spp., Proteus spp., Streptococcus spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Bacteroides spp., Pasteurella spp. and Malassezia spp.…”

Efficacy of sildenafil therapy for pulmonary hypertension in dogs: a systematic review

“…Adapted from other systematic reviews (Nuttall et al 2007, Negre et al 2009, Pereira et al 2011, various data were classified as adequate (score: 3), unclear/partly adequate (score: 2) or inadequate (score: 1). Some parameters were classified only as adequate (score: 2) or inadequate (score: 1).…”