A Systematic Review of the Quality of IV Fluid Therapy in Veterinary Medicine.
Authors: Muir William W, Ueyama Yukie, Noel-Morgan Jessica, Kilborne Allison, Page Jessica
Journal: Frontiers in veterinary science
Summary
# Editorial Summary: Quality of IV Fluid Therapy Research in Veterinary Medicine Muir and colleagues conducted a systematic review of intravenous fluid therapy literature across veterinary species to assess whether published research meets contemporary standards for rigorous trial design and reporting. Examining 139 articles (63 in dogs, 7 in cats, 39 in horses, and 30 in cattle) published between 1969 and 2016, the authors applied established methodological quality frameworks including CONSORT 2012 criteria, risk-of-bias assessment tools, and the Jadad scale to evaluate each manuscript against evidence standards. Over half of all papers failed to meet minimal reporting requirements for randomised controlled trials, with critical deficiencies in clearly stated objectives or hypotheses, explicit trial design description, sample size justification, randomisation protocols, and blinding procedures—gaps that rendered most studies underpowered and vulnerable to selection, performance, and detection bias. Whilst research quality improved noticeably after 2010, the bulk of veterinary fluid therapy literature remains primarily descriptive in nature and poorly suited to informing clinical decision-making. For equine practitioners, this finding underscores the need for heightened critical appraisal of IV therapy recommendations and highlights an opportunity for the profession to demand higher methodological standards, encouraging authors to adopt consensus reporting guidelines and journal editors to enforce them during peer review.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •Be cautious when applying findings from IV fluid therapy studies to clinical practice, as most equine and bovine literature lacks rigorous methodology and may not provide reliable evidence
- •When evaluating research on fluid protocols, look for clearly stated objectives, randomization, blinding, and sample size justification—most older studies lack these elements
- •Newer literature (post-2010) is generally more reliable; older studies should be interpreted with particular skepticism regarding their clinical recommendations
Key Findings
- •139 articles across dogs (63), cats (7), horses (39), and cattle (30) were reviewed; over 50% did not meet minimal reporting standards for RCTs
- •Most non-compliant items included failure to identify predefined objectives, trial design specification, sample size justification, randomization, and blinding procedures
- •Majority of studies were underpowered with high risk of selection, performance, and detection bias
- •Quality of published articles improved significantly for manuscripts published after 2010