BestBETs for Vets review shows global reach over 10 years

CURRENT BRIEF VERSION: BestBETs for Vets, the University of Nottingham’s open-access critically appraised topic database, is the focus of a new 10-year review that examines both what’s in the resource and how clinicians use it. The study analyzed 96 critically appraised topics across 27 topic areas and found that canine medicine and reproduction were the most common subjects. It also reported global reach, with users from more than 190 countries, and found that most traffic came from people accessing the site directly rather than through referrals. BestBETs for Vets is designed to help answer focused clinical questions using structured literature searches, critical appraisal, and a concise “clinical bottom line,” and it remains part of a broader evidence-based veterinary medicine ecosystem that includes RCVS Knowledge’s Veterinary Evidence and other evidence-synthesis tools. More broadly, the paper sits within a larger evidence-appraisal landscape in which structured tools are used to make difficult judgments from imperfect data; in human pharmacovigilance, for example, a recent scoping review identified 18 case-level causality assessment tools developed or updated between 2008 and 2023, most of them algorithm-based and some tailored to specific outcomes or populations, highlighting the wider push toward context-specific appraisal methods. (nottingham.ac.uk)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the paper is less about a single clinical finding and more about infrastructure for day-to-day decision-making. A 10-year usage review suggests there’s sustained demand for short, practice-oriented evidence summaries, especially in areas where the published evidence base is thin or difficult to apply quickly in consults. The topic mix may also highlight where evidence synthesis has concentrated so far, and where gaps remain, particularly if some species, disciplines, or common primary care questions are underrepresented. The broader lesson from appraisal research is that no single tool fits every context: in pharmacovigilance, newer causality assessment tools have increasingly been built for particular adverse events, settings, or patient groups, and reviewers have suggested future gains may come from adding biomarkers and accounting for factors such as medication error, product quality, and adherence to risk-minimization measures. In a workforce environment where time pressure is high, resources that translate literature into usable clinical bottom lines can support more consistent recommendations to pet parents, while also showing educators where trainees may need stronger support in evidence appraisal. (nottingham.ac.uk)

What to watch: Watch for whether the authors’ findings lead to expansion of underrepresented topic areas, new outreach to increase discovery beyond direct traffic, or closer integration between CAT databases, journals, and veterinary education programs. It will also be worth watching whether veterinary evidence tools become more tailored to specific clinical contexts, mirroring trends seen in other appraisal fields where specialized frameworks have emerged for particular syndromes, populations, or product types. (veterinaryevidence.org)