Updated ACVIM consensus statement on equine herpesvirus‐1

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Equine herpesvirus‐1 (EHV‐1) is a highly prevalent and frequently pathogenic infection of equids. The most serious clinical consequences of infection are abortion and equine herpesvirus myeloencephalopathy (EHM). The previous consensus statement was published in 2009 and considered pathogenesis, strain variation, epidemiology, diagnostic testing, vaccination, outbreak prevention and control, and treatment. A recent survey of American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine large animal diplomates identified the need for a revision to this original consensus statement. This updated consensus statement is underpinned by 4 systematic reviews that addressed key questions concerning vaccination, pharmaceutical treatment, pathogenesis, and diagnostic testing. Evidence for successful vaccination against, or effective treatment of EHV‐1 infection was limited, and improvements in experimental design and reporting of results are needed in future studies of this important disease. This consensus statement also updates the topics considered previously in 2009.

Related collections

Most cited references 62

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 13825 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Nathalie Percie Du Sert, Viki Hurst, Amrita Ahluwalia … (2021)

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the “ARRIVE Essential 10,” which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the “Recommended Set,” which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

0 comments Cited 1381 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions.

A Lethaby, A Schünemann, Barbara Phillips-Bute … (2009)

The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach provides guidance to grading the quality of underlying evidence and the strength of recommendations in health care. The GRADE system's conceptual underpinnings allow for a detailed stepwise process that defines what role the quality of the available evidence plays in the development of health care recommendations. The merit of GRADE is not that it eliminates judgments or disagreements about evidence and recommendations, but rather that it makes them transparent. This first article in a three-part series describes the GRADE framework in relation to grading the quality of evidence about interventions based on examples from the field of allergy and asthma. In the GRADE system, the quality of evidence reflects the extent to which a guideline panel's confidence in an estimate of the effect is adequate to support a particular recommendation. The system classifies quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low according to factors that include the study methodology, consistency and precision of the results, and directness of the evidence.

0 comments Cited 157 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

David P. Lunn:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7388-9766

paul.lunn@liverpool.ac.uk

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Vet Intern Med

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Vet Intern Med

Journal ID (doi): 10.1111/(ISSN)1939-1676

Journal ID (publisher-id): JVIM

Title: Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine

Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Hoboken, USA )

ISSN (Print): 0891-6640

ISSN (Electronic): 1939-1676

Publication date (Electronic): 18 March 2024

Publication date Collection: May-Jun 2024

Volume: 38

Issue: 3 ( doiID: 10.1111/jvim.v38.3 )

Pages: 1290-1299

Affiliations

[ ¹ ] School of Veterinary Science University of Liverpool Liverpool United Kingdom

[ ² ] College of Veterinary Medicine University of Georgia Athens Georgia USA

[ ³ ] College of Veterinary Medicine North Carolina State University Raleigh North Carolina USA

[ ⁴ ] Maxwell H. Gluck Equine Research Center University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture, Food and Environment Lexington Kentucky USA

[ ⁵ ] Institut für Virologie Freie Universität Berlin Berlin Germany

[ ⁶ ] School of Veterinary Medicine University of California Davis California USA

[ ⁷ ] College of Veterinary Medicine Michigan State University, Veterinary Medical Center East Lansing Michigan USA

Author notes

[*] [* ] Correspondence

David P. Lunn, School of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom.

Email: paul.lunn@ 123456liverpool.ac.uk

Author information

David P. Lunn https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7388-9766

Brandy A Burgess https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8580-3395

David C. Dorman https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8270-6215

Lutz S. Goehring https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8493-0675

Peggy Gross https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7906-9267

Klaus Osterrieder https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5313-2176

Gisela Soboll Hussey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1877-6926

Article

Publisher ID: JVIM17047

DOI: 10.1111/jvim.17047

PMC ID: 11099706

PubMed ID: 38497217

SO-VID: 371c2c83-fcc1-4935-834c-fbc5a79b9e81

License:

This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

History

Date received : 26 February 2024

Date accepted : 04 March 2024

Page count

Figures: 0, Tables: 1, Pages: 10, Words: 8409

Custom metadata

source-schema-version-number 2.0

cover-date May/June 2024

details-of-publishers-convertor Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.4.3 mode:remove_FC converted:17.05.2024

ScienceOpen disciplines: Veterinary medicine

Keywords: abortion,diagnosis,equine,equine herpesvirus myeloencephalopathy,herpesvirus‐1,rhinopneumonitis,therapy,vaccination,viremia

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Veterinary medicine

Keywords: abortion, diagnosis, equine, equine herpesvirus myeloencephalopathy, herpesvirus‐1, rhinopneumonitis, therapy, vaccination, viremia

Updated ACVIM consensus statement on equine herpesvirus‐1

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Horses and Humans Research Foundation

Most cited references 62

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Page count

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 583

Most referenced authors 1,048