RECOVER evidence and knowledge gap analysis on veterinary CPR. Part 1: Evidence analysis and consensus process: collaborative path toward small animal CPR guidelines

vet.upenn.edu

Publication HistoryIssue published online: 7 JUN 2012Article first published online: 7 JUN 2012Manuscript Accepted: 2 APR 2012Manuscript Received: 30 MAR 2012 SEARCH Search Scope All contentPublication titlesIn this journal isFunctionalChemistryIn this issue Search String Advanced >Saved Searches > SEARCH BY CITATION Volume: Issue: Page: ARTICLE TOOLSGet PDF (660K)Save to My ProfileE-mail Link to this ArticleExport Citation for this ArticleGet Citation AlertsRequest Permissions AbstractArticleReferencesCited By View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (660K) Keywords:cardiac arrest;canine;felineAbstractObjective

To describe the methodology used by the Reassessment Campaign on Veterinary Resuscitation (RECOVER) to evaluate the scientific evidence relevant to small animal CPR and to compose consensus‐based clinical CPR guidelines for dogs and cats.

Design

This report is part of a series of 7 articles on the RECOVER evidence and knowledge gap analysis and consensus‐based small animal CPR guidelines. It describes the organizational structure of RECOVER, the evaluation process employed, consisting of standardized literature searches, the analysis of relevant articles according to study design, species and predefined quality markers, and the drafting of clinical CPR guidelines based on these data. Therefore, this article serves as the methodology section for the subsequent 6 RECOVER articles.

Setting

Academia, referral practice.

Results

RECOVER is a collaborative initiative that systematically evaluated the evidence on 74 topics relevant to small animal CPR and generated 101 clinical CPR guidelines from this analysis. All primary contributors were veterinary specialists, approximately evenly split between academic institutions and private referral practices. The evidence evaluation and guideline drafting processes were conducted according to a predefined sequence of steps designed to reduce bias and increase the repeatability of the findings, including multiple levels of review, culminating in a consensus process. Many knowledge gaps were identified that will allow prioritization of research efforts in veterinary CPR.

Conclusions

Collaborative systematic evidence review is organizationally challenging but feasible and effective in veterinary medicine. More experience is needed to refine the process.

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (660K) More content like this Find more content: like this article Find more content written by:Manuel BollerDaniel J. FletcherAll Authors ABOUT USHELPCONTACT USAGENTSADVERTISERSMEDIAPRIVACYTERMS & CONDITIONSSITE MAP

Copyright © 1999–2012 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved.