Background
In the past it has been criticised that only a low proportion of well-designed and well-reported studies in some medical specialities is available. The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of literature about canine medicine published in peer-reviewed journals in relation to six specific veterinary medicine specialities.
Methods
A literature search was conducted and 25 studies per speciality were selected. The quality of the articles (n = 150) published between 2007 and 2019 was evaluated with a validated checklist.
Results
In articles related to all specialities, deficits were found, such as not adequate number of animals in 60.0% of the studies. In 88.0%, information about housing and feeding of the dogs were not specified. In 69.4% of the prospective clinical studies, an ethical approval was reported, and written informed consent of the owners was obtained in 46.2%.
Conclusions
The findings revealed extensive deficits in the design and reporting of studies in canine medicine. The demand for improvement is obvious and should be addressed by authors, reviewers and journal editors in the future. Our results underline that practitioners should critically appraise the quality of literature before implementing information into practice.
