Understanding of chronic sequelae development after Campylobacter infection is limited. The objective of the study was to determine via systematic review and meta-analysis the proportion of Campylobacter cases that develop chronic sequelae. A systematic review of English language articles published prior to July 2011 located using Pubmed, Agricola, CabDirect, and Food Safety and Technology Abstracts. Observational studies reporting the number of Campylobacter cases that developed reactive arthritis (ReA), Reiter’s syndrome (RS), haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) ,Guillain Barré syndrome (GBS) or Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS) were included. Data extraction through independent extraction of articles by four reviewers (two per article). Random effects meta-analysis was performed and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 value. Meta-regression was used to explore the influence of study level variables on heterogeneity. A total of 31 studies were identified; 20 reported on ReA, 2 reported on RS, 9 reported on IBS, 3 studies reported on IBD, 8 reported on GBS, 1 reported on MFS and 3 reported on HUS. The proportion of Campylobacter cases that developed ReA was 2.86% (95% CI 1.40% - 5.61%, I2 = 97.7%), irritable bowel syndrome was 4.01% (95% CI 1.41% - 10.88%, I2 = 99.2%). Guillain Barré syndrome was 0.07% (95% CI 0.03% - 0.15%, I2 = 72.7%). A significant number of Campylobacter cases develop a chronic sequela. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity.

Evidence-based decision making is a hallmark of effective veterinary clinical practice. Scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses all are methods intended to provide transparent and replicable ways of summarizing a body of research to address an important clinical or public health issue. As these methods increasingly are being used by researchers and read by practitioners, it is important to understand the distinction between these techniques and to understand what research questions they can, and cannot, address. This review provides an overview of scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis, including a discussion of the method and uses. A sample dataset and coding to conduct a simple meta-analysis in the statistical program R also are provided. Scoping reviews are a descriptive approach, designed to chart the literature around a particular topic. The approach involves an extensive literature search, following by a structured mapping, or charting, of the literature. The results of scoping reviews can help to inform future research by identifying gaps in the existing literature and also can be used to identify areas where there may be a sufficient depth of literature to warrant a systematic review. Systematic reviews are intended to address a specific question by identifying and summarizing all of the available research that has addressed the review question. Questions types that can be addressed by a systematic review include prevalence/incidence questions, and questions related to etiology, intervention efficacy, and diagnostic test accuracy. The systematic review process follows structured steps with multiple reviewers working in parallel to reduce the potential for bias. An extensive literature search is undertaken and, for each relevant study identified by the search, a formal extraction of data, including the effect size, and assessment of the risk of bias is performed. The results from multiple studies can be combined using meta-analysis. Meta-analysis provides a summary effect size, and allows heterogeneity of effect among studies to be quantified and explored. These evidence synthesis approaches can provide scientific input to evidence-based clinical decision-making for veterinarians and regulatory bodies, and also can be useful for identifying gaps in the literature to enhance the efficiency of future research in a topic area.

Many human infections are transmitted through contact with animals (zoonoses), including household pets. Although pet ownership is common in most countries and non-pet owners may have frequent contact with pets, there is limited knowledge of the public’s pet contact practices and awareness of zoonotic disease risks from pets. The objective of this study was to characterize the general public’s knowledge, attitudes and risks related to pet ownership and animal contact in southern Ontario, Canada.

The reporting of observational studies in veterinary research presents many challenges that often are not adequately addressed in published reporting guidelines. To develop an extension of the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement that addresses unique reporting requirements for observational studies in veterinary medicine related to health, production, welfare, and food safety. A consensus meeting of experts was organized to develop an extension of the STROBE statement to address observational studies in veterinary medicine with respect to animal health, animal production, animal welfare, and food safety outcomes. Consensus meeting May 11-13, 2014 in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Seventeen experts from North America, Europe, and Australia attended the meeting. The experts were epidemiologists and biostatisticians, many of whom hold or have held editorial positions with relevant journals. Prior to the meeting, 19 experts completed a survey about whether they felt any of the 22 items of the STROBE statement should be modified and if items should be added to address unique issues related to observational studies in animal species with health, production, welfare, or food safety outcomes. At the meeting, the participants were provided with the survey responses and relevant literature concerning the reporting of veterinary observational studies. During the meeting, each STROBE item was discussed to determine whether or not re-wording was recommended, and whether additions were warranted. Anonymous voting was used to determine whether there was consensus for each item change or addition. The consensus was that six items needed no modifications or additions. Modifications or additions were made to the STROBE items numbered: 1 (title and abstract), 3 (objectives), 5 (setting), 6 (participants), 7 (variables), 8 (data sources/measurement), 9 (bias), 10 (study size), 12 (statistical methods), 13 (participants), 14 (descriptive data), 15 (outcome data), 16 (main results), 17 (other analyses), 19 (limitations), and 22 (funding). Published literature was not always available to support modification to, or inclusion of, an item. The methods and processes used in the development of this statement were similar to those used for other extensions of the STROBE statement. The use of this extension to the STROBE statement should improve the reporting of observational studies in veterinary research related to animal health, production, welfare, or food safety outcomes by recognizing the unique features of observational studies involving food-producing and companion animals, products of animal origin, aquaculture, and wildlife.

Concerns about the completeness and accuracy of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the impact of poor reporting on decision making have been documented in the medical field over the past several decades. Experience from RCTs in human medicine would suggest that failure to report critical trial features can be associated with biased estimated effect measures, and there is evidence to suggest that similar biases occur in RCTs conducted in livestock populations. In response to these concerns, standardized guidelines for reporting RCTs were developed and implemented in human medicine. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first published in 1996, with a revised edition published in 2001. The CONSORT statement consists of a 22‐item checklist for reporting a RCT and a flow diagram to follow the number of participants at each stage of a trial. An explanation and elaboration document not only defines and discusses the importance of each of the items, but also provides examples of how this information could be supplied in a publication. Differences between human and livestock populations necessitate modifications to the CONSORT statement to maximize its usefulness for RCTs involving livestock. These have been addressed in an extension of the CONSORT statement titled the REFLECT statement: Methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized control trials for livestock and food safety. The modifications made for livestock trials specifically addressed the common use of group housing and group allocation to intervention in livestock studies; the use of deliberate challenge models in some trials and the common use of non‐clinical outcomes, such as contamination with a foodborne pathogen. In addition, the REFLECT statement for RCTs in livestock populations proposed specific terms or further clarified terms as they pertained to livestock studies.