Objective To systematically review the currently available validated owner‐reported outcome measures (OROMs) for assessing pain and function in dogs with osteoarthritis and other joint diseases. Study design Systematic review. Methods A systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science was performed in December, 2019, using search terms relevant to OROMs for pain and function in dogs with osteoarthritis and other joint diseases. The measurement properties of the resulting outcome instruments and validation studies were evaluated with the Consensus‐Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Results Seventeen publications describing the validation of 6 OROMs were selected and evaluated with the COSMIN. The Canine Brief Pain Inventory (CBPI), Canine Orthopedic Index (COI), and Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs (LOAD) provided evidence of sufficient content validity. Internal consistency, reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness were the most frequently validated other properties. Both CBPI and COI had sufficient internal consistency; LOAD, being formative in construct, need not be assessed for internal consistency. No instruments provided information on measurement errors. Conclusion The CBPI, COI, and LOAD can be recommended for use in dogs with osteoarthritis. Further evidence is necessary to increase the interpretability of these instruments or expand their application into other canine orthopedic conditions. Further evidence is also needed before the other 3 instruments can be recommended. Clinical significance This systematic evaluation of 6 OROMs provides clinicians and researchers with a tool that facilitates and improves evidence‐based selection of outcome measures for evaluating canine osteoarthritis and other joint disease treatments.

No abstract

Background Soft tissue management (STM) training programs for surgeons are largely tradition based, and substantial differences exist among different surgical specialties. The lack of comprehensive and systematic clinical evidence on how surgical techniques and implants affect soft tissue healing makes it difficult to develop evidence-based curricula. As a curriculum development group (CDG), we set out to find common grounds in the form of a set of consensus statements to serve as the basis for surgical soft tissue education. Methods Following a backward planning process and Kern’s six-step approach, the group selected 13 topics to build a cross-specialty STM curriculum. A set of statements based on the curriculum topics were generated by the CDG through discussions and a literature review of three topics. A modified Delphi process including one round of pilot voting through a face-to-face CDG meeting and two rounds of web-based survey involving 22 panelists were utilized for the generation of consensus statements. Results Seventy-one statements were evaluated, and 56 statements reached the 80% consensus for “can be taught as is.” Conclusions Using a modified Delphi method, a set of cross-specialty consensus statements on soft tissue management were generated. These consensus statements can be used as a foundation for multi-specialty surgical education. Similar methods that combine expert experience and clinical evidence can be used to develop specialty-specific consensus on soft tissue handling.