Searching the Veterinary Literature: A Comparison of the Coverage of Veterinary Journals by Nine Bibliographic Databases

Grindlay, D. J. C.; Brennan, Marnie L.; Dean, Rachel

doi:10.3138/jvme.1111.109r

Cited by 116 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As 9% of the reviews in this study sample searched only 1 database, readers of these studies cannot have confidence that these reviews retrieved all the relevant literature. Since CAB Abstracts indexes the veterinary medicine journal literature more comprehensively than any other research database [18], the 37% of reviews that did not search CAB Abstracts might have missed relevant research that could affect the outcome of the review. One-quarter of the reviews searched Google Scholar, and 5 of these reviews searched only 1 other database in addition to Google Scholar.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines

Toews

2017

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveComplete, accurate reporting of systematic reviews facilitates assessment of how well reviews have been conducted. The primary objective of this study was to examine compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for literature search reporting and to examine the completeness, bias, and reproducibility of the searches in these reviews from what was reported. The second objective was to examine reporting of the credentials and contributions of those involved in the search process.MethodsA sample of systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in veterinary journals between 2011 and 2015 was obtained by searching PubMed. Reporting in the full text of each review was checked against certain PRISMA checklist items.ResultsOver one-third of reviews (37%) did not search the CAB Abstracts database, and 9% of reviews searched only 1 database. Over two-thirds of reviews (65%) did not report any search for grey literature or stated that they excluded grey literature. The majority of reviews (95%) did not report a reproducible search strategy.ConclusionsMost reviews had significant deficiencies in reporting the search process that raise questions about how these searches were conducted and ultimately cast serious doubts on the validity and reliability of reviews based on a potentially biased and incomplete body of literature. These deficiencies also highlight the need for veterinary journal editors and publishers to be more rigorous in requiring adherence to PRISMA guidelines and to encourage veterinary researchers to include librarians or information specialists on systematic review teams to improve the quality and reporting of searches.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines

Toews

2017

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To overcome some of these problems we extensively searched numerous databases, including CAB Abstracts, to ensure maximum coverage of the veterinary literature as outlined by Grindlay et al [80]. The lead author was familiar with pet population research therefore it was not possible to blind the screening process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods used to estimate the size of the owned cat and dog population: a systematic review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere are a number of different methods that can be used when estimating the size of the owned cat and dog population in a region, leading to varying population estimates. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the methods that have been used for estimating the sizes of owned cat and dog populations and to assess the biases associated with those methods.A comprehensive, systematic search of seven electronic bibliographic databases and the Google search engine was carried out using a range of different search terms for cats, dogs and population. The inclusion criteria were that the studies had involved owned or pet domestic dogs and/or cats, provided an estimate of the size of the owned dog or cat population, collected raw data on dog and cat ownership, and analysed primary data. Data relating to study methodology were extracted and assessed for biases.ResultsSeven papers were included in the final analysis. Collection methods used to select participants in the included studies were: mailed surveys using a commercial list of contacts, door to door surveys, random digit dialled telephone surveys, and randomised telephone surveys using a commercial list of numbers. Analytical and statistical methods used to estimate the pet population size were: mean number of dogs/cats per household multiplied by the number of households in an area, human density multiplied by number of dogs per human, and calculations using predictors of pet ownership.ConclusionThe main biases of the studies included selection bias, non-response bias, measurement bias and biases associated with length of sampling time. Careful design and planning of studies is a necessity before executing a study to estimate pet populations.

show abstract

“…To maximize the chance of finding all relevant literature, the literature search was performed using the databases Web of Science, CAB Abstracts, and Scopus, based on the recommendations from Grindlay et al (2012). The searches were based on the key words (hoof bath* or hoofbath* or foot bath* or footbath*) and (copper sulfate or coppersulfate or copper sulphate or coppersulphate or CuSO*).…”

Section: Short Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short communication: Efficacy of copper sulfate hoof baths against digital dermatitis—Where is the evidence?

Thomsen

2015

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital dermatitis is a major problem in modern dairy production because of decreased animal welfare and financial losses. Individual cow treatments are often seen as too time consuming by farmers, and walk-through hoof baths have therefore been used extensively to control digital dermatitis. For decades, copper sulfate hoof baths have been used to treat and prevent digital dermatitis. Copper sulfate has been referred to as the industry gold standard when it comes to hoof-bath chemicals. In several scientific studies testing the efficacy of other hoof-care products, copper sulfate has been used as a positive control, thereby indicating that copper sulfate has a known positive effect. However, this may not be the case. A dilemma may exist between (1) copper sulfate generally being perceived as being effective against digital dermatitis and (2) a possible lack of well-documented scientific evidence of this effect. The objective of this study was to evaluate the existing scientific literature to determine whether the efficacy of copper sulfate used in hoof baths against digital dermatitis has in fact been demonstrated scientifically. A systematic literature search identified 7 peer-reviewed journal articles describing the efficacy of copper sulfate in hoof baths as treatment or prevention of bovine digital dermatitis. Only 2 of the 7 studies compared copper sulfate to a negative control; most studies were relatively small, and often no clear positive effect of copper sulfate was demonstrated. In conclusion, the frequent claim that copper sulfate is widely reported to be effective is supported by little scientific evidence. Well-designed clinical trials evaluating the effect of copper sulfate against digital dermatitis compared with a negative control are needed. Until such studies have been made, the efficacy of copper sulfate in hoof baths against digital dermatitis remains largely unproven.

show abstract

Searching the Veterinary Literature: A Comparison of the Coverage of Veterinary Journals by Nine Bibliographic Databases

Cited by 116 publications

References 9 publications

Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines

Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines

Methods used to estimate the size of the owned cat and dog population: a systematic review

Short communication: Efficacy of copper sulfate hoof baths against digital dermatitis—Where is the evidence?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About