https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/issue/feed Veterinary Evidence 2020-09-23T13:19:04+00:00 Jennifer Morris Jennifer@rcvsknowledge.org Open Journal Systems Veterinary Evidence is an online only, open access, peer-reviewed journal owned and published by RCVS Knowledge. It publishes content relating to evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM) and its application in veterinary practice to enhance the quality of care provided to patients. https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/331 The incidence of uterine pathology in ovariectomised bitches 2020-09-18T13:38:30+00:00 Maria Norell Candetoft maria.norell.candetoft@anicura.se <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>What is the incidence of postoperative uterine pathology in ovariectomised bitches compared to ovariohysterectomised bitches?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong>Category of research question</strong></p> <p>Incidence</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>Three retrospective case series</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence</strong></p> <p>Weak</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>None of the reviewed case series found any uterine pathology for ovariectomised bitches in the long-term follow-up of several years, although none of the studies performed a proper gynaecological examination to confirm a lack of pathology</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>With the limited evidence available, it appears that leaving the uterus when gonadectomising bitches does not seem to have a high risk for developing pathology as long as the ovaries are completely removed.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision-making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-09-18T13:30:06+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Maria Norell Candetoft https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/301 Non-Steroidal Anti-inflammatories: Does carprofen or meloxicam have fewer gastrointestinal side effects? 2020-09-11T18:10:58+00:00 Aaron Harold Andrew Fletcher afletcher53@gmail.com <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>In canines, does the oral administration of carprofen, when compared to meloxicam, result in fewer gastrointestinal side effects?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong>Category of research question</strong></p> <p>Treatment</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>Three prospective randomised controlled trials were critically reviewed</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence</strong></p> <p>Weak</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>Treatment with carprofen or meloxicam results in no significant difference in gastric lesion scoring, increased intestinal mucosal permeability or diminished small bowel absorptive capacity</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>There is insufficient evidence supporting preferential administration of carprofen or meloxicam to reduce gastrointestinal side effects</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision-making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-09-11T11:53:04+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Aaron Harold Andrew Fletcher https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/316 In Greyhounds with paw pad corns, is surgical excision more effective at resolving lameness than extirpation? 2020-09-03T13:59:05+00:00 Dan Kenny dan-kenny@hotmail.co.uk <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>In Greyhounds (and Sighthounds) with recurring pedal corns, is surgical excision in comparison to corn extirpation more effective at resolving lameness?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong>Category of research question</strong></p> <p>Treatment</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>Three case series were included, all three were retrospective, one included a prospective component. There was one opinion-based narrative review and one opinion-based article.</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence</strong></p> <p>Weak</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>Extirpation allows only a short palliation of lameness and repeated treatment is required at variable intervals. Surgical excision may provide good rates of short-term resolution however, in the long-term recurrence rates are still moderate. It should also be born in mind that further corns may develop in different digits.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>In Greyhounds (and Sighthounds) with recurring pedal corns, surgical excision of the corn is more likely to provide long-term resolution of lameness in comparison to extirpation. However, the current level of evidence on this topic is weak.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision-making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-09-03T13:55:12+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Dan Kenny https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/311 Can garlic prevent, repel or kill fleas that infest dogs? 2020-08-28T11:53:17+00:00 Louise Anne Buckley louise.buckley@ed.ac.uk <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>In dogs, is oral or topical administration of garlic, compared to no treatment, efficacious at preventing or reducing parasitism by fleas?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong>Category of research question</strong></p> <p>Treatment</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>Zero</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence</strong></p> <p>Critical appraisal of the selected papers meeting the inclusion criteria collectively provide zero evidence in terms of their experimental design and implementation</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>The outcomes reported were none</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>It is concluded that there is a lack of peer-reviewed scientific <em>in vivo </em>evidence to address the PICO</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision-making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-08-28T11:49:46+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Louise Anne Buckley https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/313 Comparison of the safety of alfaxalone and propofol as anaesthetic induction agents in bitches undergoing c-section 2020-08-20T11:14:54+00:00 Benjamin Haythornthwaite bhaythornthwaite@hotmail.co.uk <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>In bitches and their puppies undergoing caesarean section, is an alfaxalone or a propofol induction safer?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong>Category of research question</strong></p> <p>Risk</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>Six papers were critically reviewed. There were two randomised controlled trials directly comparing alfaxalone and propofol inductions, two randomised controlled trials including a propofol induction in one of the experimental groups and two non-comparative studies.</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence</strong></p> <p>Moderate</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>Propofol and alfaxalone can both be used safely for the anaesthesia of bitches and their puppies undergoing caesarean section. There is evidence that alfaxalone may provide better anaesthesia quality for the bitches, and the puppies may be delivered with higher indicators of puppy vitality following its use. Further research into the beneficial clinical outcomes of alfaxalone should be investigated.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>The use of both propofol and alfaxalone for the induction of bitches undergoing caesarean section can be recommended.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision-making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-08-19T11:56:46+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Benjamin Haythornthwaite https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/319 In pregnant bitches, is elective caesarean section more effective than vaginal delivery at improving puppy survival? 2020-08-13T22:10:09+00:00 Mullika Borisoot mb15544@bristol.ac.uk <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>In pregnant bitches due to whelp, is elective caesarean section more effective than vaginal delivery to improve puppy survival?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong>Category of research question</strong></p> <p>The category of the research question is regarding the incidence of puppy mortalities as a result of vaginal delivery, emergency caesarean section and elective caesarean section.</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>Two retrospective articles were reviewed and critically appraised; one retrospective study with high single canine breed bias and one study on different canine breeds but limited support in directly answering the PICO question.</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence</strong></p> <p>The studies selected both had strong uses of experimental designs but together provided weak evidence to determine a definitive answer to the PICO question.</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>The outcomes from both retrospective studies suggests that the mortality rates of newborn puppies can be reduced if pregnant bitches are scheduled ahead for elective caesareans, in comparison to undergoing an emergency caesarean section when complications develop, particularly in breeds with higher risks of dystocia. Therefore, there is some evidence to support that it may be advantageous to consider the breed, age and overall health of the bitch during pregnancy to determine whether elective caesarean sections, for the safe delivery of puppies, should be considered.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>There are currently insufficient studies, literatures and evidence in veterinary medicine for caesarean sections to become a routine procedure in first opinion practices. Future prospective studies should be conducted and include the optimum anaesthetic protocols with the lowest associated risks for the pregnant bitch and puppies.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-08-13T14:25:21+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Mullika Borisoot https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/288 In dogs diagnosed with osteoarthritis, is meloxicam superior to carprofen for reducing patient discomfort? 2020-07-29T13:32:29+00:00 Lesca Monica Sofyan lesca.sofyan.xx@hotmail.com <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>In dogs diagnosed with osteoarthritis, is meloxicam superior to carprofen for reducing patient discomfort?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong>Category of research question</strong></p> <p>Treatment</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>Only two papers have compared the efficacy between meloxicam and carprofen in the treatment of dogs diagnosed with osteoarthritis. Both of the papers were clinical, prospective and randomised trials.</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence</strong></p> <p>Weak</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>One randomised controlled clinical trial compared the level of efficacy between meloxicam and carprofen in reducing pain and discomfort in dogs diagnosed with osteoarthritis<sup>1</sup>. Orthopaedic surgeons found dogs treated with either meloxicam or carprofen showed significant improvement in ground reaction forces (GRF). The study emphasised that dogs treated with meloxicam had GRF values that returned to normal baseline values, with owners also commenting on gait improvement. This study however, had a low sample size, did not use a validated metrology instrument for assessment by owners and the data used to assess GRF was not conclusive on all parameters to favour meloxicam.</p> <p>An additional study was evaluated but this also had very small case numbers, no control group and gave no detailed statistical analysis<sup>2</sup>. The paper descriptively suggests meloxicam to show a better response than carprofen but there was no scientific analysis or evidence to statistically support and validate this.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>Both meloxicam and carprofen are validated as effective treatments for canine osteoarthritis but it cannot be suggested that meloxicam is superior to carprofen as the available evidence is weak. To accurately assess this, a future clinical study using validated metrology instruments, adequate sample sizes and proper statistical analysis is required.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision-making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-07-29T12:11:59+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Lesca Monica Sofyan https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/317 In horses with osteoarthritis, is mesenchymal stem cell therapy more effective at managing lameness than intra-articular corticosteroids? 2020-09-23T13:19:04+00:00 Laura Pratley hllpratl@liv.ac.uk <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>In horses with osteoarthritis, is mesenchymal stem cell therapy more effective at managing lameness than intra-articular corticosteroids?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong>Category of research question</strong></p> <p>Treatment</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>Nine papers were critically reviewed; seven experimental trials and two randomised controlled double-blinded trials.</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence</strong></p> <p>Weak to moderate</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>There is moderate evidence to suggest that chondrogenically induced mesenchymal stem cells combined with equine allogenic plasma have a good efficacy at reducing lameness in the short-term, in horses with mild to moderate lameness associated with osteoarthritis. However, there is no definitive evidence directly comparing mesenchymal stem cell therapy and corticosteroids, to identify if mesenchymal stem cell therapy is more effective than intra-articular corticosteroids.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>In horses with mild to moderate lameness associated with osteoarthritis, there is moderate evidence to suggest that mesenchymal stem cell therapies are effective at managing lameness. However, it is undetermined whether they are more effacious than intra-articular corticosteroids.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision-making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-07-23T14:54:54+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Laura Pratley https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/320 An assessment of the impact of educational interventions on hand hygiene compliance 2020-07-31T11:55:46+00:00 Carla Husband ch16490@bristol.ac.uk Abbie McMillan am16185@bristol.ac.uk Lauren Sweeney ls16628@bristol.ac.uk <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>In small animal veterinary professions, does implementation of an educational intervention, when compared to no intervention, improve hand hygiene compliance?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong>Category of research question</strong></p> <p>Treatment</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>Three papers were critically appraised. They were all prospective observational cohort studies</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence</strong></p> <p>Weak</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>Two out of the three papers did not find educational implementation to have a statistically significant positive effect on hand hygiene compliance (HHC) in small animal veterinary professionals</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>The veterinary evidence reviewed does not provide strong justification for the use of education in the improvement of HHC in small animal practice. This contrasts with extensive human evidence which supports the use of educational interventions (Helder et al., 2010).&nbsp; However, a limited veterinary knowledge base in the field of HH, combined with the flawed methodologies of the appraised literature, suggests that this finding is not representative of the effect education could have on HHC.</p> <p>The conclusion drawn from the evidence assessed within this Knowledge Summary is that educational interventions are not significantly linked to an improvement in HHC within a small animal veterinary setting. When considering the volume of human evidence which supports education as a tool to improve HHC, the authors suggest this Knowledge Summary should be repeated in the future when additional veterinary evidence is available to reassess the conclusion drawn</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision-making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-07-16T09:34:18+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Carla Husband, Abbie McMillan, Lauren Sweeney https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/299 Developments in surgical fluid therapy rates in veterinary medicine 2020-07-09T13:21:02+00:00 Kristina Naden knaden@unitec.ac.nz <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>Is there sufficient evidence to show surgical fluid therapy delivered at the recommended 3 mL/kg/hour for cats and 5 mL/kg/hour for dogs leads to a better outcome compared with widely accepted rates of 10 mL/kg/hour for both cats and dogs?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong>Category of research question</strong></p> <p>Treatment</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>Five studies were appraised. Two of these were opinion pieces, with one non-comparative prospective study, one randomised controlled trial, and one case control study.</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence</strong></p> <p>Weak</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>Currently there is limited evidence to show that the surgical fluid therapy recommendations made by the 2013 Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association guidelines (Davis et al., 2013) for cats and dogs lead to a better outcome than accepted fluid therapy rates used. Fluid overload in humans can cause long-term adverse effects, however the same effects have yet to be shown specifically in veterinary patients</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>No evidence was found that provides strong, conclusive evidence that the 2013 recommendations by the American Animal Hospital Association and American Association of Feline Practitioners leads to a better outcome for both cats and dogs. The resulting research outlined below identifies a need to conduct clinical studies on the effects of fluid therapy on cats and dogs, and identify clear monitoring protocols to minimise and ideally avoid, fluid overload. When adequate, valid clinical studies have been carried out, this will provide sufficient information for the development of evidence-based recommended rates of fluid therapy for veterinary medicine, in a range of contexts</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision-making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-07-09T13:16:45+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Kristina Naden https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/index.php/ve/article/view/309 In mares with placentitis does the duration of antibiotic treatment affect foal outcome? 2020-07-03T13:07:17+00:00 Elizabeth Barter elizabeth.barter@sconeequine.com.au <p><strong>PICO question</strong></p> <p>In mares with placentitis does treatment with long-term antibiotics result in improved foal viability when compared to repeated short courses of 7 to 10 days?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Clinical bottom line</strong></p> <p><strong>Category of research question</strong></p> <p>Treatment</p> <p><strong>The number and type of study designs reviewed</strong></p> <p>The literature search identified six publications that included length of antibiotic treatment and foetal outcome. The publications consisted of four non-randomised non-blinded controlled trials and two randomised non-blinded controlled trials</p> <p><strong>Strength of evidence</strong></p> <p>Collectively there was weak evidence to support either an intermittent or continuous antibiotic protocol in the treatment of placentitis in mares</p> <p><strong>Outcomes reported</strong></p> <p>The literature involved experimental induction of ascending placentitis with foal survival or viability as the outcome</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>Further research is required into the diagnosis of placentitis, length of treatment and choice of antibiotic/s to penetrate the uterus in a diseased state</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="http://www.ebvmlearning.org/apply/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How to apply this evidence in practice</a></span></p> <p>The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.</p> <p>Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision-making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access"> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/pr-icon.jpg" alt="Peer Reviewed"></p> 2020-07-03T13:01:02+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Elizabeth Barter