Literature DB >> 19926151

The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety.

A M O'Connor1, J M Sargeant, I A Gardner, J S Dickson, M E Torrence, C E Dewey, I R Dohoo, R B Evans, J T Gray, M Greiner, G Keefe, S L Lefebvre, P S Morley, A Ramirez, W Sischo, D R Smith, K Snedeker, J Sofos, M P Ward, R Wills.   

Abstract

The conduct of randomized controlled trials in livestock with production, health, and food-safety outcomes presents unique challenges that may not be adequately reported in trial reports. The objective of this project was to modify the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to reflect the unique aspects of reporting these livestock trials. A two-day consensus meeting was held on November 18-19, 2008 in Chicago, IL, United States of America, to achieve the objective. Prior to the meeting, a Web-based survey was conducted to identify issues for discussion. The 24 attendees were biostatisticians, epidemiologists, food-safety researchers, livestock-production specialists, journal editors, assistant editors, and associate editors. Prior to the meeting, the attendees completed a Web-based survey indicating which CONSORT statement items may need to be modified to address unique issues for livestock trials. The consensus meeting resulted in the production of the REFLECT (Reporting Guidelines For Randomized Control Trials) statement for livestock and food safety (LFS) and 22-item checklist. Fourteen items were modified from the CONSORT checklist, and an additional sub-item was proposed to address challenge trials. The REFLECT statement proposes new terminology, more consistent with common usage in livestock production, to describe study subjects. Evidence was not always available to support modification to or inclusion of an item. The use of the REFLECT statement, which addresses issues unique to livestock trials, should improve the quality of reporting and design for trials reporting production, health, and food-safety outcomes.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19926151     DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.10.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Vet Med        ISSN: 0167-5877            Impact factor:   2.670


  8 in total

1.  The effect of tylosin on antimicrobial resistance in beef cattle enteric bacteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Casey L Cazer; Erin R B Eldermire; Guillaume Lhermie; Sarah A Murray; H Morgan Scott; Yrjö T Gröhn
Journal:  Prev Vet Med       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 2.670

Review 2.  Do antimicrobial mass medications work? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating antimicrobial prophylaxis or metaphylaxis against naturally occurring bovine respiratory disease.

Authors:  Keith Edward Baptiste; Niels Christian Kyvsgaard
Journal:  Pathog Dis       Date:  2017-09-29       Impact factor: 3.166

Review 3.  Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research.

Authors:  Carol Kilkenny; William J Browne; Innes C Cuthill; Michael Emerson; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 8.029

4.  Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research.

Authors:  Carol Kilkenny; William J Browne; Innes C Cuthill; Michael Emerson; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  J Pharmacol Pharmacother       Date:  2010-07

5.  Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine.

Authors:  K J Wareham; R M Hyde; D Grindlay; M L Brennan; R S Dean
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 2.741

Review 6.  Early experiences matter: a review of the effects of prenatal environment on offspring characteristics in poultry.

Authors:  L M Dixon; N H C Sparks; K M D Rutherford
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Recovery of chronically lame dairy cows following treatment for claw horn lesions: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  H J Thomas; J G Remnant; N J Bollard; A Burrows; H R Whay; N J Bell; C Mason; J N Huxley
Journal:  Vet Rec       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 2.695

8.  Sample size and number of outcome measures of veterinary randomised controlled trials of pharmaceutical interventions funded by different sources, a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  K J Wareham; R M Hyde; D Grindlay; M L Brennan; R S Dean
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2017-10-04       Impact factor: 2.741

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.