Watch your language: An exploration of the use of causal wording in veterinary observational research.

Observational research may be conducted to predict an outcome or to identify associations between an intervention or risk factor (an "exposure") and an outcome. However, the end goal of observational research often is to identify exposures that can be manipulated to improve an outcome, meaning that the aim is identify causal relationships. Causal inference from observational studies may be appropriate when an exposure-outcome of interest is identified, causal reasoning is used to identify confounders, confounders are adequately controlled, and theoretical issues, such as temporality, are considered. If these conditions are not met, causal inference cannot be made in an observational study. The objective of our study was to explore the use of causal language in veterinary observational studies, and to compare the use of causal language between studies that appear to be predictive or associational in purpose vs. those that appear to be exploring causal relationships. The dataset comprised 200 observational studies in veterinary species published between 2020 and 2022. The majority (117 out of 200) were cross-sectional studies. There were 48 studies that described an exposure-outcome of interest, and we considered these studies to be exploring potential causal relationships; of note, this liberal categorization would be anticipated to overestimate the proportion of studies suitably designed for causal inference. Overall, 172 studies (86%) used causal wording in at least one section of the article. Causal language was used in 128/152 (84%) of studies exploring predictions or associations; this language implies causation when it is not appropriate to do so. In studies designed such that causal inference might be possible, 44/48 (92%) used causal language in one or more sections. There were no substantive differences in the use of causal wording between observational study designs, exposure types, or whether the first author's affiliation was a country in which English is an official language. There is a need for authors of veterinary observational studies to explicitly state the purpose of the study (associational, predictive, or causal), and to use causal wording appropriately based on the aim of the study.

Publication and accessibility of results of controlled trials in dairy science.

Research allows for the discovery of new knowledge and is integral to evidence-based decision-making. However, research is only useful if it is available. The aim of this study was to explore publication and accessibility of full-text reports for controlled trials (experimental studies) conducted in dairy cattle. We determined the proportion of controlled trials presented as abstracts at the 2015 Joint Annual Meeting of the American Dairy Science Association and the American Society of Animal Science or the 2015 American Association of Bovine Practitioners Annual Conference that were subsequently published. Factors associated with publication or non-publication in a peer-reviewed journal were evaluated using risk ratios. For trials that were subsequently published, we compared the sample size, numerical results, and inference between the conference abstract and the subsequent publication. Approximately half of the trials (177 out of 380) reported at conferences were subsequently published. Source conference, whether the conference abstract results were described as preliminary, whether there was at least one positive outcome, author affiliation, whether the trial involved deliberate disease induction, and total sample size were not strongly associated with subsequent publication. For trials that were published, the sample size differed between the conference proceedings and full publications for 22%, the numerical results differed in 29%, and the inference differed for 11%. We also evaluated whether trials included in 9 recent systematic reviews were in English and were available without subscription or cost. Of the 390 trials included in recent systematic reviews, approximately 40% were available only through subscription or access fee. These results suggest that publication and accessibility of research results is suboptimal, representing an area of wastage in dairy cattle research. Researchers should ensure that they publish the results of trials comprehensively in searchable publications, even if the results are not novel or do not detect expected differences, and, when possible, make the results available freely.

Salmonella in Animal Feeds: A Scoping Review.

The objective of this study was to describe the volume and nature of published literature on Salmonella in animal feeds using a formal scoping review methodology. A structured search followed by eligibility screening resulted in the identification of 547 relevant studies, encompassing studies conducted in the fields in which animal feeds are grown (15 studies), the manufacturing sector (106), during transportation (11), in the retail sector (15), and on-farm (226), with the sector not described for 204 studies. The most common study purposes were to estimate the prevalence of Salmonella in animal feeds (372 studies) and to identify serovars (195). The serovars that were found in animal feeds included serovars associated with human illness, with animal illness, and with serovars identified in food (livestock and poultry) intended for human consumption. There were 120 intervention studies and 83 studies conducted to evaluate potential risk factors. Within intervention and risk factor studies, there may be sufficient depth to warrant synthesis research in the areas of heat interventions, fermentation and ensiling, organic acids, season, and geographic region. Some deficiencies were identified in the completeness of reporting of key features in the relevant studies.

Quality of reporting of clinical trials in dogs and cats: An update.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive reporting of clinical trials is essential to allow the trial reader to evaluate the methodological rigor of the trial and interpret the results. Since publication of the updated Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for reporting of parallel clinical trials in humans, extensions for reporting of abstracts and crossover trials have been published. OBJECTIVES: To describe the types of trials using dogs and cats published from 2015 to 2020 and to evaluate the quality of reporting of a sample of recently published parallel and crossover trials. ANIMALS: None. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify parallel or crossover design clinical trials using dogs and cats published from January 1, 2015 onwards. Quality of reporting was evaluated on a subset of trials published during 2019. The reporting of items recommended in the CONSORT reporting guidelines for abstracts, parallel trials, and crossover trials was evaluated independently by 2 reviewers using standardized forms created for this study. Disagreements among reviewers were resolved by consensus. Results were tabulated descriptively. RESULTS: The frequency of reporting of trial features varied from low to high. There remain deficiencies in the quality of reporting of key methodological features and information needed to evaluate and interpret trial results. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: There is still a need for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors to follow reporting guidelines such as CONSORT to maximize the value of clinical trials and to increase confidence in the validity of the trial results.

The relationship between parental report on the BRIEF and performance-based measures of executive function in children with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) is a questionnaire that assesses parental observations of behaviors associated with executive function in children in the home environment. The current investigation examines the relationship between the BRIEF and individually-administered neuropsychological tests in children with traumatic brain injury. Forty-eight children with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury were administered the WISC-III and several performance-based tests of executive function (the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Trail Making Test Part B, verbal fluency), and a parent completed the BRIEF. Results indicate that the Metacognition Index from the BRIEF correlates with Verbal IQ, but none of the index scores from the BRIEF correlate with any of the performance-based tests of executive function. Results are discussed with respect to the ecological validity of standardized clinical neuropsychological tests of executive function.