Dixon Andrea L, Hanthorn Christy J, Pendell Dustin L, Cernicchiaro Natalia, Renter David G
Center for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Transl Anim Sci. 2022 Jun 6;6(3):txac077. doi: 10.1093/tas/txac077. eCollection 2022 Jul.
Animal husbandry decisions for feedlot cattle may be based on economic or financial impacts reported from livestock research trials comparing interventions such as health practices or performance technologies. Despite the importance of economic assessments to production management decisions, there are no consensus guidelines for their methods or reporting. Thus, we hypothesized that methods and reporting of economic assessments in the scientific literature are inconsistent. This scoping review describes the types of economic assessments used to evaluate the costs and benefits of interventions in feedlot trials, how measured health and performance outcomes are utilized in economic evaluations, and the completeness of reporting. A structured search was used to retrieve peer-reviewed articles (published in English) on experimental trials performed in Australia, North America, or South Africa, which reported feedlot cattle health, performance, or carcass characteristics and included an economic outcome. A total of 7,086 articles were screened for eligibility; 91 articles (comprising 113 trials) met the inclusion criteria. Trial characteristics, methods, and reporting data were extracted. A primary outcome was stated in only 36% (41/113) of the trials. Of these 41 trials, an economic outcome was reported as a primary outcome in 18 (44%). Methodology for the economic assessment was reported for 54 trials (48%), the type of economic assessment was explicitly stated for 21 trials (19%), and both the type of economic assessment and methodology used were reported for 29 trials (26%); neither were reported for nine trials (8%). Eight types of economic assessments were explicitly reported: cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit analysis, enterprise analysis, partial budget, break-even analysis, profitability, decision analysis, and economic advantage. From the trials that did not report an assessment type, three were identified: partial budget, enterprise analysis, and gross margin analysis. Overall, only 32 trials (28%) reported economics as an outcome of interest, the methodology used or the type of assessment, and values, sources, and dates for at least some of the price data used in the analysis. Given the variability in methods and inconsistent reporting for feedlot trials identified by this scoping review, a guideline to facilitate consistency on appropriate methods and reporting is warranted.
饲养场肉牛的畜牧决策可能基于畜牧研究试验报告的经济或财务影响，这些试验比较了诸如健康管理措施或生产性能技术等干预措施。尽管经济评估对生产管理决策很重要，但对于其方法或报告尚无共识性指南。因此，我们推测科学文献中经济评估的方法和报告不一致。本范围综述描述了用于评估饲养场试验中干预措施成本和效益的经济评估类型、在经济评估中如何利用所测量的健康和生产性能结果以及报告的完整性。采用结构化检索来获取在澳大利亚、北美或南非进行的实验性试验的同行评审文章（英文发表），这些文章报告了饲养场肉牛的健康、生产性能或胴体特征，并包括经济结果。总共筛选了7086篇文章以确定其是否符合资格；91篇文章（包含113项试验）符合纳入标准。提取了试验特征、方法和报告数据。仅36%（41/113）的试验陈述了主要结果。在这41项试验中，18项（44%）将经济结果报告为主要结果。54项试验（48%）报告了经济评估的方法，21项试验（19%）明确说明了经济评估的类型，29项试验（26%）报告了经济评估的类型和所使用的方法；9项试验（8%）两者均未报告。明确报告了八种经济评估类型：成本效益分析、成本效益分析、企业分析、局部预算、盈亏平衡分析、盈利能力分析、决策分析和经济优势分析。在未报告评估类型的试验中，确定了三种：局部预算、企业分析和毛利率分析。总体而言，只有32项试验（28%）将经济作为感兴趣的结果、所使用的方法或评估类型以及分析中使用的至少一些价格数据的值、来源和日期进行了报告。鉴于本范围综述确定的饲养场试验方法的变异性和报告的不一致性，有必要制定一项指南以促进在适当方法和报告方面的一致性。
