Assessment of methodological quality and sources of variation in the magnitude of vaccine efficacy: a systematic review of studies from 1960 to 2005 reporting immunization with Moraxella bovis vaccines in young cattle.

Department of Veterinary Diagnostics and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine, 1715 Veterinary Medicine Building, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Vaccine (Impact Factor: 3.49). 02/2008; 26(2):144-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.10.014
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A review was conducted of all identified literature evaluating Moraxella bovis vaccines efficacy in preventing pinkeye in beef calves. From 292 publications identified by the search, data on 123 unique vaccine-to-control comparisons were extracted from 38 studies published in English from 1960 to 2005. Descriptive analysis was performed and an analysis of sources of variation evaluated. Use of methods to control bias such as randomization and blinding were associated with decreased vaccine efficacy. Only 15 trials reported using randomization and blinding. The authors conclude that when designing and reporting veterinary vaccination studies, researchers must include methodological quality information necessary to judge the evidence produced from the study.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article is the sixth in a series of six articles describing systematic reviews of interventions in animal agriculture and veterinary medicine. The first article provided an overview of systematic reviews, followed by an article on building evidence across study designs, and an article describing criteria for validity in randomized controlled trials. The fourth article in this series overviewed the initial steps in conducting a systematic review: development of a review protocol, identification of the structured question to be addressed and conducting a comprehensive literature search to identify potentially relevant research to address the review question. The fifth article introduced relevance screening of literature to identify and include research that is relevant to the review question, the use of standardized checklists and procedures to assess the risk of bias in the relevant research, data extraction from primary research studies and summarizing the results of the body of research identified. Many systematic reviews of interventions aim to use a quantitative method to combine the results of multiple studies and provide a more precise estimate of the effect of the intervention on the outcome, that is, a summary effect measure. The objective of this article was to describe general approaches that are available for quantitative synthesis of data. Specific details of all meta-analysis statistical approaches are beyond the capacity of this article.
    Zoonoses and Public Health 06/2014; 61 Suppl S1:52-63. DOI:10.1111/zph.12123 · 2.07 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: "In this article, the authors describe the sources used by clinicians to obtain information about the efficacy of treatments. The authors discuss how the potential for bias differs by information source and how the ability to assess bias differs by information source. The authors also discuss how the clinical setting and background are important to making decisions about treatments, but clinical impressions of efficacy can be biased. The role of cohort studies, clinical impressions, case reports, case series, pharmacokinetic studies, in vivo studies, narrative review, and opinion are also discussed." Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Veterinary Clinics of North America Food Animal Practice 03/2015; 31(1):1-15. DOI:10.1016/j.cvfa.2014.11.001 · 1.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article is the first in a series of six articles related to systematic reviews in animal agriculture and veterinary medicine. In this article, we overview the methodology of systematic reviews and provide a discussion of their use. Systematic reviews differ qualitatively from traditional reviews by explicitly defining a specific review question, employing methods to reduce bias in the selection and inclusion of studies that address the review question (including a systematic and specified search strategy, and selection of studies based on explicit eligibility criteria), an assessment of the risk of bias for included studies and objectively summarizing the results qualitatively or quantitatively (i.e. via meta-analysis). Systematic reviews have been widely used to address human healthcare questions and are increasingly being used in veterinary medicine. Systematic reviews can provide veterinarians and other decision-makers with a scientifically defensible summary of the current state of knowledge on a topic without the need for the end-user to read the vast amount of primary research related to that topic.
    Zoonoses and Public Health 06/2014; 61 Suppl S1:3-9. DOI:10.1111/zph.12128 · 2.07 Impact Factor

Preview (2 Sources)

Available from