10-year review shows global reach for BestBETs for Vets

CURRENT FULL VERSION: A new 10-year review of BestBETs for Vets offers a rare look at how one of veterinary medicine’s better-known critically appraised topic databases has actually been used over time. Published in Veterinary Record Open, the analysis found 96 critically appraised topics across 27 topic areas, with canine medicine and reproduction featuring most often, while website users came from more than 190 countries. The findings suggest that even a relatively modest evidence resource can achieve wide international reach when it addresses practical clinical questions. (nottingham.ac.uk)

BestBETs for Vets was developed by the University of Nottingham’s Centre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine as a freely accessible database of Best Evidence Topics for veterinary practice. According to the center, these reviews are meant to answer common, highly specific clinical questions through a structured literature search, critical appraisal, and a concise clinical bottom line. The model was adapted from human emergency medicine and was built to give clinicians a quicker, more achievable route to evidence use than a full systematic review. (nottingham.ac.uk)

That background matters because the database sits in a broader ecosystem of evidence-based veterinary medicine resources. RCVS Knowledge lists BestBETs for Vets alongside other critically appraised topic and evidence-summary tools, and Nottingham says the resource can support day-to-day decision-making, practice discussions, journal clubs, and clinical guideline development. In other words, the database is positioned not just as a reading library, but as a practical bridge between published research and clinical care. (knowledge.rcvs.org.uk)

The review also highlights some structural limits that veterinary professionals will recognize. Nottingham says BestBETs searches rely on CAB Abstracts and MEDLINE, using systematic and repeatable methods, but the team does not attempt to search every available database or include unpublished work. The university explicitly notes that this means some relevant evidence may be missed. That caveat is important when interpreting the 10-year review: high engagement with the platform does not automatically mean complete evidence coverage, and older appraisals may need revisiting as new studies emerge. (nottingham.ac.uk)

Outside commentary supports the idea that these kinds of tools fill a real need. A recent review in the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine described resources such as BestBETs for Vets and RCVS Knowledge summaries as part of the infrastructure helping clinicians access evidence more efficiently in practice. Other educational materials from RCVS Knowledge similarly frame critically appraised topics as a workable format for clinicians who need focused answers without conducting a full evidence review from scratch. That broader point also shows up outside veterinary medicine: a Drug Safety scoping review of case-level causality assessment tools identified 18 tools developed or updated between 2008 and 2023, drawing on 48 articles and seven grey-literature sources. Most were algorithmic, with smaller numbers of hybrid, probabilistic, and global-introspection approaches, and several were built for specific outcomes or settings such as drug-induced liver injury, severe cutaneous adverse reactions, pediatrics, neonatal intensive care, and vaccine adverse events. (academic.oup.com)

That pharmacovigilance review is not about BestBETs for Vets directly, but it reinforces a familiar lesson for evidence-based practice: structured tools are useful because they make decision-making more consistent, yet they remain context-dependent and imperfect. The authors concluded that future causality tools may need to incorporate biomarkers, especially for areas such as drug-induced liver injury, severe cutaneous adverse reactions, and immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicity, while also accounting for factors like drug quality, medication error, and adherence to risk-minimization measures. For veterinary readers, that is a useful parallel to the challenge facing CAT databases more broadly: the more specific and clinically relevant the question, the more important it becomes to match the tool to the setting and to keep methods evolving with the evidence.

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this is ultimately a workforce and education story as much as an informatics one. A globally accessed CAT database suggests sustained demand for concise, appraisal-based clinical support, especially in settings where time, subscription access, or formal evidence-review training may be limited. It also underscores a continuing challenge for the profession: evidence-based tools are only as useful as their topic coverage, update cadence, and visibility within practice workflows. The parallel literature on causality assessment makes the same point from another angle—decision-support tools can improve consistency, but no single framework captures every clinically relevant variable. For clinicians, educators, and practice leaders, the paper offers a reminder that evidence resources can support better discussions and more consistent care, but they don’t replace clinical judgment or the need to teach appraisal skills. (nottingham.ac.uk)

What to watch: The next phase will likely be less about whether CAT databases are useful and more about whether they can scale, stay current, and connect more directly with veterinary education, clinical protocols, and digital point-of-care systems. If BestBETs for Vets expands beyond its current scope or updates legacy content more aggressively, that could make it more influential in how veterinarians, and eventually pet parents through their care teams, experience evidence-based practice. More broadly, the trend in adjacent evidence fields is toward more tailored tools for particular populations, outcomes, and care settings, which may shape expectations for future veterinary decision-support resources. That last point is an inference based on the resource’s stated role in informed decision-making and guideline support, rather than a claim made directly in the review. (nottingham.ac.uk)