Search

ObjectiveThe Glasgow Feline Composite Measure Pain Scale (CMPS-F) is a validated cat pain assessment tool for clinical use. No research has examined how training impacts use of this tool. Thus, we examined whether seminar-style training improves the identification of cat pain when using the CMPS-F. Veterinarians (n = 17) and non-veterinarian staff (n = 33; N = 50) were recruited to participate.ProcedureSeminars included: i) pre-training use of the CMPS-F to score cat videos with varying degrees of pain; ii) cat pain assessment training; and iii) post-training use of the CMPS-F. Participant CMPS-F ratings were compared to experts' ratings of the same videos. Average CMPS-F scores and analgesic decision ratings were compared pre-and post-training.ResultsMost participants were female non-veterinarian staff who had not heard of the CMPS-F. Participant and expert analgesic decision-making did not differ pre- (P = 1.0) and post-training (P = 0.1). In addition, analgesic decision-making was similar between participants and experts for all but 3/20 videos.Conclusion and clinical relevanceSeminar training may not be necessary for efficacious use of the CMPS-F. Further research is needed to explore strategies for improving awareness of cat pain assessment tools and increasing in-clinic use.

Copyright of Canadian Veterinary Journal / Revue Vétérinaire Canadienne is the property of Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article explores the challenges and considerations in veterinary education and assessment. It focuses on predicting future needs of the profession, identifying necessary traits for future-proofing the profession, and using evidence-based approaches to education. The authors stress the importance of context and pragmatism in planning curricular structures and highlight the significance of student characteristics and quality of instruction in student learning. They also discuss evidence-based strategies for effective learning and the role of assessment in reinforcing learning. The article concludes with proposed evidence-based solutions for veterinary education. Additionally, the article examines the validity of programmatic assessment in competency-based education and provides evidence supporting its use as a valid method for evaluating student competency. The authors emphasize the importance of aligning assessment with desired outcomes and the need for ongoing evaluation and refinement of assessment methods. This article offers valuable insights for researchers and educators interested in implementing programmatic assessment in competency-based education. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Canadian Veterinary Journal / Revue Vétérinaire Canadienne is the property of Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: To evaluate the reporting of key items associated with risk of bias and weak study design over a 10‐year period. Design: Literature survey. Setting: Not applicable. Animals: Not applicable. Interventions: Papers published in the Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care between 2009 and 2019 were screened for inclusion. Inclusion criteria consisted of prospective experimental studies describing in vivo or ex vivo research (or both), containing at least 2 comparison groups. Identified papers had identifying information (publication date, volume and issue, authors, affiliations) redacted by an individual not involved with paper selection or review. Two reviewers independently reviewed all papers and applied an operationalized checklist to categorize item reporting as fully reported, partially reported, not reported, or not applicable. Items assessed included randomization, blinding, data handling (inclusions and exclusions), and sample size estimation. Differences in assessment between reviewers were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. A secondary aim was to document availability of data used to generate study results. Papers were screened for links to access data in the text and supporting information. Measurements and Main Results: After screening, 109 papers were included. Eleven papers were excluded during full‐text review, with 98 papers included in the final analysis. Randomization was fully reported in 31.6% of papers (31/98). Blinding was fully reported in 31.6% of papers (31/98). Inclusion criteria were fully reported in all papers. Exclusion criteria were fully reported in 60.2% of papers (59/98). Sample size estimation was fully reported in 8.0% of papers (6/75). No papers (0/99) made data freely available without a requirement to contact study authors. Conclusions: There is substantial room for improvement in reporting of randomization, blinding, data exclusions, and sample size estimations. Evaluation of study quality by readers is limited by the low reporting levels identified, and the risk of bias present indicates a potential for inflated effect sizes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is the gold standard lifestyle modification program that reduces incident type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients with prediabetes and patients with non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) often share metabolic features; we hypothesized that the DPP could be adapted and used to improve outcomes in patients with NAFLD. Methods: NAFLD patients were recruited into a 1 year modified DPP. Demographics, medical comorbidities, and clinical laboratory values were collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary endpoint was change in weight at 12 months. Secondary endpoints were changes in hepatic steatosis, metabolic comorbidities, and liver enzymes (per‐protocol basis) and retention at 6 and 12 months. Results: Fourteen NAFLD patients enrolled; three dropped out before 6 months. From baseline to 12 months, hepatic steatosis (p = 0.03), alanine aminotransferase (p = 0.02), aspartate aminotransferase (p = 0.02), high‐density lipoprotein (p = 0.01) and NAFLD fibrosis score (p < 0.001) improved, but low‐density lipoprotein worsened (p = 0.04). Conclusion: Seventy‐nine percent of patients completed the modified DPP. Patients lost weight and had improvements in five out of six indicators of liver injury and lipid metabolism. Clinical Trial Registry Number: NCT04988204. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Veterinary Journal / Revue Vétérinaire Canadienne is the property of Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)