BestBETs for Vets review shows global reach, uneven topic spread

Version 1

A new 10-year review of BestBETs for Vets offers a rare look at how one of veterinary medicine’s long-running critically appraised topic databases has actually been used. The study reviewed 96 CATs across 27 topic areas and found the strongest concentration in canine medicine and reproduction, while website traffic data showed the resource reached users in more than 190 countries, with many accessing it directly rather than through search or referral channels. BestBETs for Vets, developed by the University of Nottingham’s Centre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine, was launched in 2013 to give clinicians quick, question-focused evidence summaries rather than full systematic reviews. (ovid.com)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the paper highlights both the value and the limits of point-of-care evidence tools. BestBETs for Vets was built to support clinical decision-making with concise, repeatable literature appraisals, and Nottingham’s CEVM says the resource is also used in undergraduate teaching, journal clubs, and guideline development. But the database’s topic mix, with heavier coverage in some species and disciplines than others, also points to where the profession still lacks fast, usable evidence summaries. More broadly, that challenge is not unique to veterinary CATs: a recent scoping review in pharmacovigilance identified 18 causality assessment tools developed or updated between 2008 and 2023, most of them algorithm-based, and found that many are still tailored to specific outcomes or settings rather than universally applicable. In a workforce environment shaped by time pressure, uneven literature access, and growing expectations for evidence-based care, that matters for how teams support decisions and communicate options to pet parents. (nottingham.ac.uk)

What to watch: Watch for whether the findings lead to expansion of CAT coverage in underrepresented areas, and for wider use of these summaries in practice education and clinical protocols. It will also be worth watching whether future veterinary evidence tools borrow from wider causality-assessment work, including more context-specific methods and, in some areas, biomarker-informed approaches. (nottingham.ac.uk)