Purpose
Veterinary evidence is unevenly distributed. Some questions have been addressed by adequately powered randomised trials; many more rest on a single small study, on data borrowed from human medicine, or on convention that has never been tested. The distribution itself is rarely documented, which makes it difficult for a clinician to know how much weight a given recommendation will bear.
This site documents that distribution. It grades the evidence behind individual clinical questions, appraises the studies on which those grades rest, and records explicitly where no evidence exists. The intention is descriptive rather than polemical, and the blank regions of the map are treated as findings in their own right.
Editorial approach
Grades are appraisals of the published literature and are stated as such. They do not constitute a formal GRADE assessment, and reasonable readers may grade a question differently. Where that is likely, the specific limitations driving the grade are listed so that the judgement can be inspected and disputed. Entries are revised as evidence accumulates, and the revision date is shown on each page.
Appraisals draw on the primary report, on supplementary material, and on regulatory summaries where an intervention is licensed. Where an analysis has not been published, that is recorded as an absence rather than filled in by inference.
Editorial status
Everything published here is an editorial appraisal. Nothing on this site has been peer reviewed, and it is presented in journal format for legibility and citation rather than to imply refereed status. Each appraisal states its review status explicitly in its declarations.
The work is written and maintained by a board-certified veterinary cardiologist in clinical practice. Authorship details will be added to this page.
Independence and funding
This is a personal project. It receives no funding from any institution, journal, manufacturer or professional body, carries no advertising, and nothing published here should be read as the position of any employer. Where an appraisal concerns a licensed product, the sponsor of the underlying trial is named.
Contact and corrections
Corrections, missed citations and proposed additions are welcome and will be acknowledged. Where a correction changes a grade or a conclusion, the revision is dated on the page concerned.
Write to contact@evidencegap.vet.
Limits
Appraisals are commentary on published literature. They are not clinical advice, do not establish a standard of care, and are not a substitute for the judgement of the attending clinician.