Letter to the Editor
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The authors would like to thank Dr. Mathews and Dr. Dyson for their comments on our recently published article "Systematic Review of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug-Induced Adverse Effects in Dogs", as it contributes to further discussion on the topic. Indeed, we acknowledge that the article by Mathews et al. 1990 "Nephrotoxicity in dogs associated with methoxyflurane anesthesia and flunixin meglumine analgesia" was erroneously referenced beside the statement "a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) was administered with a corticosteroid or another NSAID". In fact, an erratum had already been submitted to correct this reference positioning error. Our study attempted to identify and evaluate the quality of information regarding NSAID-induced adverse effects in dogs through a systematic review. It is important to remember that our approach used a well-recognized means of assessing multiple studies in a fair and meaningful manner. The assessment criteria are clearly outlined in Tables 1, 2 and 3 and represent a means of evaluating information regarding single NSAIDs, or NSAIDs as a group, in a way that can be meaningfully applied to the population of dogs being treated in practice. Essentially, this is a way to grade the 'generalizability' of clinical and experimental research to the clinical population. Additionally, our review focused on distilling the available information on safety associated with the drug itself, not varying combinations of NSAIDs and other agents. We did not discuss the merit, nor the temporal or historical context of each individual study which would be beyond the scope of this review, and potentially misleading unless each and every study was discussed in that manner. We do realize the importance of the study by Mathews et al. 1990 at that time, and complement them for providing scientific evidence that methoxyflurane (MOF) in association with flunixin meglumine (FM) led to acute renal failure in dogs. However, despite its importance in indicating a link between the concurrent use of MOF and an NSAID (FM), that study, either alone, or in combination with the other available evidence regarding FM, does not constitute a substantial body of information regarding FM-induced adverse effects. Further, when looking across different NSAIDs, there is a dearth of information about NSAID-induced renal adverse effects. Indeed, in conclusion, we suggested "Large clinical trials associated with better specific diagnostic tools may elucidate the incidence of renal adverse drug experience in dogs after NSAID administration." With respect, we stand by our conclusion of "extremely low strength of evidence" for flunixin meglumine, but this in no way detracts from the importance of the Mathews et al. study in communicating a potential issue associated with the concurrent use of MOF and flunixin meglumine.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,068 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,019 | 0,018 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,054 | 0,029 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».