Objectives The aim of this study was to develop a critical appraisal (CA) tool that addressed study design and reporting quality as well as the risk of bias in cross-sectional studies (CSSs). In addition, the aim was to produce a help document to guide the non-expert user through the tool. Design An initial scoping review of the published literature and key epidemiological texts was undertaken prior to the formation of a Delphi panel to establish key components for a CA tool for CSSs. A consensus of 80% was required from the Delphi panel for any component to be included in the final tool. Results An initial list of 39 components was identified through examination of existing resources. An international Delphi panel of 18 medical and veterinary experts was established. After 3 rounds of the Delphi process, the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS tool) was developed by consensus and consisted of 20 components. A detailed explanatory document was also developed with the tool, giving expanded explanation of each question and providing simple interpretations and examples of the epidemiological concepts being examined in each question to aid non-expert users. Conclusions CA of the literature is a vital step in evidence synthesis and therefore evidence-based decision-making in a number of different disciplines. The AXIS tool is therefore unique and was developed in a way that it can be used across disciplines to aid the inclusion of CSSs in systematic reviews, guidelines and clinical decision-making.

A thorough search of the literature to find the best evidence is central to the practice of evidence-based veterinary medicine. This requires knowing which databases to search to maximize journal coverage. The aim of the present study was to compare the coverage of active veterinary journals by nine bibliographic databases to inform future systematic reviews and other evidence-based searches. Coverage was assessed using lists of included journals produced by the database providers. For 121 active veterinary journals in the “Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials, Third Edition,” the percentage coverage was the highest for Scopus (98.3%) and CAB Abstracts (97.5%). For an extensive list of 1,139 journals with significant veterinary content compiled from a variety of sources, coverage was much greater in CAB Abstracts (90.2%) than in any other database, the next highest coverage being in Scopus (58.3%). The maximum coverage of the extensive journal list that could be obtained in a search without including CAB Abstracts was 69.8%. It was concluded that to maximize journal coverage and avoid missing potentially relevant evidence, CAB Abstracts should be included in any veterinary literature search.

The limited use of biosecurity practices by many in the farming community is likely to be due to a range of factors; further understanding of this issue is required. In this study, attitudes and behaviours of producers relating to selected biosecurity practices and the farming industry were studied by interviewing cattle farmers within a 100 km2 study area in north-west England using an interview-based questionnaire.

Language matters in shaping perceptions and guiding behaviour. The term stakeholder is widely used, yet little attention is paid to the possibility that its use may inadvertently perpetuate colonial narratives and reinforce systemic inequities. In this article, we critically examine the limitations of the stakeholder concept and its ambiguity, normativity, and exclusionary implications. We emphasise the importance of using language that gives a voice to marginalised groups, promotes inclusion and equity, and fosters meaningful and reflexive participation in decision-making processes. In critiquing the use of the term and calling for alternative practices, we aim to contribute to the decolonisation of research norms and the creation of more inclusive and equitable societies. Therefore, rather than advocating a single alternative term, we suggest a focus on the people, places, and species affected by decisions, interventions, projects, and issues.

Few studies have considered in detail the range of biosecurity practices undertaken on cattle farms, particularly within the UK. In this study, 56 cattle farmers in a 100 km² area of north-west England were questioned regarding their on-farm biosecurity practices, including those relating to animal movements, equipment sharing and companies and contractors visiting the farms. There was great variation between farms in terms of the type of, and extent to which, biosecurity was carried out. For example, the majority of farmers did not isolate stock bought onto the farm, but a small proportion always isolated stock. Many farmers administered treatments post-movement, primarily vaccinations and anthelmintics, but very few farms reported carrying out any health checks after moving animals on. In addition, there appeared to be much variation in the amount of biosecurity carried out by the different companies and contractors visiting the farms. Deadstock collectors and contracted animal waste spreaders, although likely to have a high potential for contact with infectious agents, were reported to infrequently disinfect themselves and their vehicles. These findings suggest that although certain biosecurity practices are undertaken, many are carried out infrequently or not at all. This may be due to many factors, including cost (in time and money), lack of proven efficacies of practices and lack of relevant education of veterinary surgeons, producers and other herd health specialists. Further research exploring the reasons for the lack of uptake is imperative if preventive medicine is to be utilised fully by the farming industry.