Just finished rapid review of evidence that #cats#dogs can be fomites for human coronavirus . We found NO evidence related to #COVID19, SARS, MERS. Not peer reviewed, feel free to critique or find errors, we'll update. https://t.co/vgYJvdffJW #veterinary#animals
@oconnorwalker Thanks for letting me know. I really like this concept. I am currently publishing my study protocols on @OSFramework, for example, https://t.co/J9mSDs0xcB, and systematic review protocols https://t.co/3AMpiUpr1Q and I would be open to this idea. I'll explore more.
@paul_msg@paul_mag that’s great to hear, I was worried we were setting the bar too low. My current approach is to have the authors mention that there was no protocol and discuss that as a possible bias, Best, AOC
Great to have Cesar Amorim- Moura from @ISUVetMed present the improved reporting of #veterinary vaccine trials at #CRWAD — conclusion— reporting is improving but we can still do better to #researchwaste
@Maclomaclee is a leader in this area in biomedical research and a strong advocate for improving reporting of animal research. Certainly recommended reading.
A reader expresses suspicion of image manipulation and you're not sure what to do next. This new flowchart, developed with Stephanie Boughton @SpringerNature, is a step by step guide, with links to useful tools. https://t.co/z6TRiCeF6b
Access a web version of the #machinelearning tool presented at #ISVEE15 for automation of #systematicreviews here https://t.co/IeglbNtKV7 and discover also the other tools available
How might we raise research reporting standards across the life sciences? Please read this post. And let us know! https://t.co/Cb6Jx9kxJP @verokiermer@ValdaVinson@biologyfan @AndyMCollings @chrisgrafpub Karen Chambers, @Maclomaclee @EvoMellor
This video explains why systematic reviews are important and how they are done. This includes an explanation of how the effects of interventions are compared in order to provide evidence. https://t.co/6EJWN6KMci Please Retweet and share!
"[D]espite some positive effects, open access is unethical for at least three reasons: it discriminates against researchers, creates an editorial conflict of interest and diverts funding from the actual conduct of research." (And wait for it -- sub req'd) https://t.co/APPT5aXUe4
"About 10–14 female mice were assigned to one of then following exposure groups:..."
It would have been too wordy to just put the n for each group in parentheses so "about" will have to do.
"A list of all of the dependent measures that were analyzed for this study is included in Table 1"
Thank-you. Would be even better if this assured the reader that all dependent measures analyzed were also the only dependent measures for the study. 🧐