Display options
Cite
Muir WW, Ueyama Y, Noel-Morgan J, et al. A Systematic Review of the Quality of IV Fluid Therapy in Veterinary Medicine. Front Vet Sci. 2017;4:127doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00127.
Muir, W. W., Ueyama, Y., Noel-Morgan, J., Kilborne, A., & Page, J. (2017). A Systematic Review of the Quality of IV Fluid Therapy in Veterinary Medicine. Frontiers in veterinary science, 4127. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2017.00127
Muir, William W, et al. "A Systematic Review of the Quality of IV Fluid Therapy in Veterinary Medicine." Frontiers in veterinary science vol. 4 (2017): 127. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2017.00127
Muir WW, Ueyama Y, Noel-Morgan J, Kilborne A, Page J. A Systematic Review of the Quality of IV Fluid Therapy in Veterinary Medicine. Front Vet Sci. 2017 Aug 14;4:127. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00127. eCollection 2017. PMID: 28856137; PMCID: PMC5557817.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Vet Sci. 2017 Aug 14;4:127. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00127. eCollection 2017.

A Systematic Review of the Quality of IV Fluid Therapy in Veterinary Medicine.

Frontiers in veterinary science

William W Muir, Yukie Ueyama, Jessica Noel-Morgan, Allison Kilborne, Jessica Page

Affiliations

  1. QTest Labs, Columbus, OH, United States.
  2. College of Veterinary Medicine, Lincoln Memorial University, Harrogate, TN, United States.
  3. Center for Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Research, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, United States.
  4. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Columbus, OH, United States.

PMID: 28856137 PMCID: PMC5557817 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00127

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of the veterinary literature investigating IV fluid therapy in dogs, cats, horses, and cattle.

DESIGN: Systematic review.

PROCEDURES: The preferred reporting of items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) was employed for systematic review of all relevant IV fluid therapy manuscripts published from January 1969 through December 2016 in the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International (CABI) database. Independent grading systems used to evaluate manuscripts included the updated CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2012 checklist, risk of bias for animal intervention studies, criteria for levels of evidence, and methodological quality (Jadad scale). The quality of articles published before and after 2010 was compared.

RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine articles (63 dogs, 7 cats, 39 horses, 30 cattle) from 7,258 met the inclusion criteria. More than 50% of the manuscripts did not comply with minimal requirements for reporting randomized controlled trials. The most non-compliant items included identification of specific predefined objectives or a hypothesis, identification of trial design, how sample size was determined, randomization, and blinding procedures. Most studies were underpowered and at risk for selection, performance, and detection bias. The overall quality of the articles improved for articles published after 2010.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Most of the veterinary literature investigating the administration of IV fluid therapy in dogs, cats, horses, and cattle is descriptive, does not comply with standards for evidence, or provide adequate translation to clinical practice. Authors should employ and journal editors should enforce international consensus recommendations and guidelines for publication of data from animal experiments investigating IV fluid therapy.

Keywords: cattle; colloids; companion animals; crystalloids; intravenous fluids

References

  1. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 28;(3):ED000078 - PubMed
  2. Shock. 2016 Dec;46(6):609-622 - PubMed
  3. Hosp Pharm. 2015 Jun;50(6):446-53 - PubMed
  4. BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6 - PubMed
  5. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2009 May;4(2):79-88 - PubMed
  6. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Mar 26;14:43 - PubMed
  7. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract. 2014 Aug;30(2):415-25, viii-ix - PubMed
  8. BMJ. 2004 Feb 28;328(7438):514-7 - PubMed
  9. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2015 Sep 1;247(5):496-500 - PubMed
  10. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336-41 - PubMed
  11. Crit Care Med. 2016 Apr;44(4):724-33 - PubMed
  12. PLoS Med. 2013;10(7):e1001482 - PubMed
  13. Radiology. 2003 May;227(2):309-13 - PubMed
  14. Trials. 2016 Feb 19;17 :100 - PubMed
  15. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010 Aug;126(2):619-25 - PubMed
  16. Crit Care Med. 1990 Apr;18(4):457-8 - PubMed
  17. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2016 Sep 1;249(5):547-51 - PubMed
  18. JAMA. 1999 Sep 15;282(11):1054-60 - PubMed
  19. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2013 May-Jun;49(3):149-59 - PubMed
  20. BMJ. 2002 Feb 23;324(7335):474-6 - PubMed
  21. Lancet. 2003 Mar 22;361(9362):978-9 - PubMed
  22. J Environ Sci Health B. 2006;41(7):1245-58 - PubMed
  23. Neurology. 2012 Jun 5;78(23):1886-91 - PubMed
  24. Int J Surg. 2012;10(1):28-55 - PubMed
  25. Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Aug;26(8):889-96 - PubMed
  26. PLoS Med. 2013;10(7):e1001489 - PubMed
  27. Extrem Physiol Med. 2014 Sep 29;3:16 - PubMed
  28. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4 - PubMed
  29. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2015 Jul-Aug;65(4):281-91 - PubMed
  30. Control Clin Trials. 1996 Feb;17(1):1-12 - PubMed
  31. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2014 Jul;30(2):429-39, vi-vii - PubMed
  32. J Trauma. 2003 Sep;55(3):571-89 - PubMed
  33. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2002 Oct 15;221(8):1112-21 - PubMed
  34. N Engl J Med. 2004 May 27;350(22):2247-56 - PubMed
  35. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011 Sep;108(39):663-8 - PubMed
  36. Crit Care. 2002 Aug;6(4):335-41 - PubMed
  37. Lab Anim. 2011 Oct;45(4):225-30 - PubMed
  38. J Intensive Care. 2016 Mar 15;4:20 - PubMed
  39. Lab Anim. 2012 Jan;46(1):24-31 - PubMed
  40. BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928 - PubMed
  41. Lancet. 2005 Apr 9-15;365(9467):1348-53 - PubMed
  42. Circ Res. 2016 Feb 5;118(3):439-53 - PubMed
  43. PLoS Biol. 2010 Jun 29;8(6):e1000412 - PubMed
  44. Br J Anaesth. 2014 Nov;113(5):772-83 - PubMed

Publication Types