2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.09.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Epidemiological research and evidence based medicine: How do they fit and for whom

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Conversely, there were eight confounded findings that would have been accepted as significant if only univariable analysis had been applied but that did not show associations after accounting for confounding in multivariable analysis: periodontal disease, obesity, overgrown nail(s), retained deciduous tooth, lameness, skin mass, osteoarthritis and lipoma. Reporting false positive and false negative results in scientific studies carries increasingly detrimental risks for dog welfare as we move into the era of evidence based veterinary medicine and policy 70 , 71 . Results from canine health studies influence breed club health initiatives, research funding, animal charity campaigning and government policy 36 , 73 – 75 and thus the reliability of research findings are critical if we are to optimise decision-making on future dog welfare strategies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conversely, there were eight confounded findings that would have been accepted as significant if only univariable analysis had been applied but that did not show associations after accounting for confounding in multivariable analysis: periodontal disease, obesity, overgrown nail(s), retained deciduous tooth, lameness, skin mass, osteoarthritis and lipoma. Reporting false positive and false negative results in scientific studies carries increasingly detrimental risks for dog welfare as we move into the era of evidence based veterinary medicine and policy 70 , 71 . Results from canine health studies influence breed club health initiatives, research funding, animal charity campaigning and government policy 36 , 73 – 75 and thus the reliability of research findings are critical if we are to optimise decision-making on future dog welfare strategies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…No attempt was made in the current study to apply retrospective diagnostic criteria to confirm or exclude cases diagnosed as hypothyroid by the attending veterinary surgeon because we aimed to report on primary care veterinary caseloads as they are recognised and diagnosed rather than to cleanse these caseloads retrospectively based on external superimposed diagnostic criteria. It is also recognised that the attending veterinary teams would have access to, and considered, many additional diagnostic aids such as their personal history with the animal and the owner, the full presenting phenotype and their personal clinical experience that would be challenging to assess via the clinical records alone but that are recognised as being critical components of the evidence-based triad for diagnosis [ 33 , 51 ]. Although this may have allowed inclusion of some misclassified cases, this big data study of a primary-care caseload aimed to reflect diagnostic protocols used in primary-care practice and to provide results with generalisability to the wider dog population.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, these findings may become problematic when participation within communities is expected to be beneficial for professionals who have to base their actions not only on individual experience but also on evidence-based knowledge. In veterinary medicine, as in health care in general, evidence-based practice has become increasingly important (Goldenberg 2006;Slater 2010). When professionals want to make their practice evidence-based, communities will not help when they spend most of their time storytelling, instead of participating in critically reflective dialogues in which professionals explore reasons together and construct meaning collaboratively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%