Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Clinical trials in dogs and cats - how well are they reported?
By Sargeant, Jan M et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2021·Department of Population Medicine, Canada·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Quality of reporting of clinical trials in dogs and cats: An update.
Plain-English summary
This study looked at how well clinical trials involving dogs and cats have been reported from 2015 to 2020. The researchers found that while some aspects of the trials were reported well, there were still many important details missing that are necessary for understanding the results. This means that both the people conducting the trials and those reviewing them need to do a better job of following established guidelines to ensure the findings are clear and trustworthy. Overall, the study highlights that improvements are still needed in reporting clinical trials involving pets.
Abstract
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.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34184331/