The current catch-cry is for evidence-based veterinary practice. There are a number of levels at which this may apply - from the use of a relatively simple tool such as radiography to diagnose a fracture (ie. evidence for a diagnosis), through tools to diagnose variable conditions on a continuum, such as hip dysplasia, to methods to help decide which treatment is applicable, and what evidence there is for deciding on a particular treatment.
Hip dysplasia is an interesting example whereby traditional methods such as extended-leg radiographs are satisfactory for diagnosing hip dysplasia in advanced cases, yet they are more variable at diagnosing mild to moderate hip dysplasia, especially at a young age: ie. they are less likely to diagnose hip dyslasia in a mildly affected young dog. A stress radiographic technique such as the PennHIP technique now has a lot of evidence as a more reliable tool to determine the degree of hip laxity as a measure of the degree of hip dysplasia in animal so fo any age over 4 months of age. It is a useful tool for predicting problems in an individual, and is also a useful tool for tailoring breeding programs to lower the severity of hip dysplasia in a line of a breed, and to thus potentially make a line more valuable in terms of it's contribution to the breed, to a person acquiring a dog from the line, and for the breeders reputation and sense of satisfaction.
A number of discussions in the recent literature have centred around the types of publications, from single case reports through case series (as retrospective or preferably prospective studies) through to double-blind controlled studies and meta-analysis.

|