Evaluation of publication bias in the assessment of probiotic treatment for gastrointestinal disease in dogs and cats.

IF 0.9 4区农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES

Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne Pub Date : 2025-03-01

J Scott Weese

{"title":"Evaluation of publication bias in the assessment of probiotic treatment for gastrointestinal disease in dogs and cats.","authors":"J Scott Weese","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses underpin the evidence-to-decision framework used for guideline development. Publication bias is important to understand when assessing the strength of evidence.Objective: To evaluate the peer-reviewed-journal publication rate of abstracts from 2 veterinary internal medicine conferences regarding probiotic treatment for gastrointestinal disease in dogs and cats.Animals and procedure: Abstracts from the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Forum (2000 to 2023) and European College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Congress (2002 to 2023) that reported clinical gastrointestinal disease outcomes of probiotic treatment for dogs, cats, or both were included. PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched to identify corresponding peer-reviewed publications.Results: Twelve abstracts were identified; 6 (50%) were subsequently published as peer-reviewed publications. Five of 6 (83%) that were published reported positive clinical outcomes, whereas 4/6 (67%) that were not published reported no beneficial clinical outcomes. Overall, 5/7 (71%) abstracts that reported a clinical effect were published, compared to 1/5 (20%) that did not.Conclusion: Publication bias complicates assessment of the literature and guideline development.Clinical relevance: The potential impact of publication bias should be considered when evaluating the literature and developing guidelines.","PeriodicalId":9429,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne","volume":"66 3","pages":"250-254"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11897921/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses underpin the evidence-to-decision framework used for guideline development. Publication bias is important to understand when assessing the strength of evidence.

Objective: To evaluate the peer-reviewed-journal publication rate of abstracts from 2 veterinary internal medicine conferences regarding probiotic treatment for gastrointestinal disease in dogs and cats.

Animals and procedure: Abstracts from the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Forum (2000 to 2023) and European College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Congress (2002 to 2023) that reported clinical gastrointestinal disease outcomes of probiotic treatment for dogs, cats, or both were included. PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched to identify corresponding peer-reviewed publications.

Results: Twelve abstracts were identified; 6 (50%) were subsequently published as peer-reviewed publications. Five of 6 (83%) that were published reported positive clinical outcomes, whereas 4/6 (67%) that were not published reported no beneficial clinical outcomes. Overall, 5/7 (71%) abstracts that reported a clinical effect were published, compared to 1/5 (20%) that did not.

Conclusion: Publication bias complicates assessment of the literature and guideline development.

Clinical relevance: The potential impact of publication bias should be considered when evaluating the literature and developing guidelines.

本刊更多论文

评价益生菌治疗狗和猫胃肠道疾病的发表偏倚

背景：系统评价和荟萃分析是指南制定中从证据到决策框架的基础。在评估证据的强度时，理解发表偏倚是很重要的。目的：评价两篇关于益生菌治疗犬猫胃肠道疾病的兽医内科会议论文摘要的同行评议发表率。动物和程序：来自美国兽医内科学院论坛（2000年至2023年）和欧洲兽医内科学院大会（2002年至2023年）的摘要，报告了益生菌治疗狗、猫或两者的临床胃肠道疾病结果。检索PubMed和Web of Science数据库以确定相应的同行评审出版物。结果：共鉴定出12篇摘要；6篇（50%）随后作为同行评议的出版物发表。已发表的6项研究中有5项（83%）报告了积极的临床结果，而未发表的6项研究中有4项（67%）没有报告有益的临床结果。总体而言，5/7（71%）的摘要报告了临床效果，而1/5（20%）的摘要没有。结论：发表偏倚使文献评价和指南制定复杂化。临床相关性：在评价文献和制定指南时应考虑到发表偏倚的潜在影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Canadian Veterinary Journal-revue Veterinaire Canadienne 农林科学-兽医学

CiteScore

1.20

自引率

10.00%

发文量

177

审稿时长

12-24 weeks

期刊介绍： The Canadian Veterinary Journal (CVJ) provides a forum for the discussion of all matters relevant to the veterinary profession. The mission of the Journal is to educate by informing readers of progress in clinical veterinary medicine, clinical veterinary research, and related fields of endeavor. The key objective of The CVJ is to promote the art and science of veterinary medicine and the betterment of animal health. A report suggesting that animals have been unnecessarily subjected to adverse, stressful, or harsh conditions or treatments will not be processed for publication. Experimental studies using animals will only be considered for publication if the studies have been approved by an institutional animal care committee, or equivalent, and the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, or equivalent, have been followed by the author(s).