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.

Assessment of quality of life (QoL) is an important, increasingly popular outcome measure in veterinary research and practice, particularly in dogs. In humans, QoL is commonly assessed by self-reporting and since this is not possible for animals, it is crucial that instruments designed to measure QoL are tested for reliability and validity. Using a systematic, replicable literature search strategy, the aim of this study was to find published, peer-reviewed instruments for QoL assessment in dogs and to assess the quality of these. CAB Abstracts and PubMed were searched in July 2013 using terms relevant to dogs, wellbeing and QoL. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. When instruments were not published in full, authors were contacted to obtain them. Criteria were applied to assess the quality, validity and reliability of the 52 instruments obtained. Twenty-seven additional instruments used in peer-reviewed publications were not included because they had not been fully described in the publication or were not provided by authors upon request. Most of the instruments reviewed (48/52) were disease-specific rather than generic. Only four publications provided a definition of QoL or wellbeing. Only 11/52 instruments demonstrated evidence of assessing reliability or validity, and the quality of these instruments was variable. Many novel, unvalidated instruments have been generated and applied as clinical outcomes before it was known whether they measured QoL. This rapid review can be used to identify currently available and validated canine QoL instruments, and to assess the validity and quality of new or existing instruments.

The population of dogs and cats passing through rescue shelters may be subject to compromised welfare and increased susceptibility to disease. Little information exists to describe this population, its dynamics and associated management practices. The aim of this study was to carry out a census of un-owned cats and dogs in the UK in 2010, and to document the origins, destinations, husbandry and costs associated with the care of these animals.

The practice of evidence‐based veterinary medicine involves the utilisation of scientific evidence for clinical decision making. To enable this, research topics pertinent to clinical practice need to be identified, and veterinary clinicians are best placed to do this. The main aim of this study was to describe the veterinary population, the common species and conditions veterinary clinicians nominated they saw in practice and how much information clinicians perceived was available in the literature for these. A questionnaire was distributed to all Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons registered veterinarians agreeing to be contacted for research purposes (n=14,532). A useable response rate of 33 per cent (4842/14,532) was achieved. The most commonly seen species reported by vets were dogs, cats and rabbits followed by equines and cattle. Overall, skin conditions were most commonly mentioned for small animals, musculoskeletal conditions for equines and reproduction conditions for production animals. Veterinary clinicians perceived there was a higher level of information available in the literature for conditions in dogs, cattle and equines and lower levels for rabbits and guinea pigs. The results from this study can be used to help define the research needs of the profession to aid the incorporation of evidence in veterinary practice.