Charles O. Cummings, Jessica Eisenbarth, and David D.R. Krucik "THE VALUE OF N-OF-1 DATA IN ZOOLOGICAL MEDICINE: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW," Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 54(3), 417-427, (4 October 2023). https://doi.org/10.1638/2022-0168
Charles O. Cummings, Jessica Eisenbarth, and David D.R. Krucik "THE VALUE OF N-OF-1 DATA IN ZOOLOGICAL MEDICINE: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW," Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 54(3), 417-427, (4 October 2023). https://doi.org/10.1638/2022-0168
Charles O. Cummings, Jessica Eisenbarth, and David D.R. Krucik "THE VALUE OF N-OF-1 DATA IN ZOOLOGICAL MEDICINE: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW," Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 54(3), 417-427, (4 October 2023). https://doi.org/10.1638/2022-0168
Charles O. Cummings, Jessica Eisenbarth, and David D.R. Krucik "THE VALUE OF N-OF-1 DATA IN ZOOLOGICAL MEDICINE: A METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW," Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 54(3), 417-427, (4 October 2023). https://doi.org/10.1638/2022-0168
Abstract
N-of-1 data are unavoidable in zoological medicine. Accordingly, zoological medicine clinicians and investigators need research techniques that can make use of these data. This article reviews two methodologies for using both observational and experimental N-of-1 data: 1) systematic reviews and meta-analyses of case reports and 2) prospective N-of-1 trials. Systematic reviews of case reports and other observational evidence are formal, unbiased summaries of clinical characteristics of a particular disease-taxon combination. They offer advantages to narrative reviews by minimizing omission of relevant articles, thereby reducing the potential for mischaracterization of the literature. Meta-analyses are extensions of systematic reviews that quantitatively synthesize the data from the included articles. While valuable, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of case reports can have limited interpretations due to publication bias and confounding present in their source materials. In contrast to case reports, N-of-1 trials are prospective study designs that allow clinicians to make strong inferences about the effect of an intervention in a particular patient. They are double-blinded, single patient, multi-crossover studies that are of particular value in fields where it is difficult to recruit sufficient patients for conventional randomized control trials (RCTs), such as zoological medicine. Because they require multiple crossover periods, N-of-1 trials are ideal for evaluating short-acting interventions in patients with somewhat stable chronic diseases, such as osteoarthritis. More complex than conventional therapeutic trials, N-of-1 trials require prior consideration of how to achieve blinding, appropriate placebo controls, quantitative primary outcomes, analysis methods, and ethical approval. Aggregation of N-of-1 trials allows estimation of the average treatment effect across the population with fewer participants than a conventional RCT. While systematic reviews and meta-analyses of case reports can be used to synthesize the observational N-of-1 data already in existence, N-of-1 trials offer an exciting way to prospectively generate strong evidence that will be useful for evidence-based decision-making.
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
