Academics at University of Nottingham launch BestBETS for Vets and VetSRev to help vets use evidence-based medicine in day-to-day practice.
Academics at the University of Nottingham have launched two free internet resources for vets.
BestBETS for Vets and VetSRev are the brainchild of scientists from Nottingham’s Centre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine (CEVM) at the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, and are designed to help the profession use evidence-based medicine (EBM) in their day-to-day careers.
BestBETs for Vets, say academics, has been adapted from an EBM resource for emergency doctors. BET stands for “best evidence topic” and provides a summary of the evidence found relating to a specific clinical question posed by those in the veterinary profession.
The questions found on the site have all come from vets in general practice, said the CEVM team, which have then gone through a structured literature search to find evidence. A BET is structured in a very simple format, they say, and it is possible for users to either just read the answer, or the whole BET, which includes the search terms used and the appraisal of the papers found.
Rachel Dean, the director of the CEVM, said “there is no other database like [BestBETS for Vets] in veterinary medicine”, despite many that have been created for human medicine.
“There are also no practitioner-orientated evidence summaries for practising vets to help them incorporate evidence in clinical decision making,” she said. “These new resources should help to facilitate the use of best evidence in practice.”
The other resource, VetSRev, is a freely accessible online database of citations for systematic reviews in veterinary medicine and science.
Systematic reviews of good quality are considered the “strongest evidence” for clinical decision making, said the CEVM team, and VetSRev lists more then 300 references. They developed this, they said, to establish “what had already been done and provide one place of reference for researchers of clinicians looking for systematic reviews”.