Quiz Question

In Radke 2022 et al., on outcome measure validation, which of the following OROMs demonstrated the **most rigorous development process** according to COSMIN criteria?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. COI was rated as “adequate” for overall development, the highest rating among the instruments evaluated.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Canine Orthopedic Index (COI).
COI was rated as “adequate” for overall development, the highest rating among the instruments evaluated.

🔍 Key Findings

  • CBPI, COI, and LOAD are recommended for assessing canine osteoarthritis based on COSMIN criteria.
  • COI scored highest in development rigor and evidence quality among evaluated OROMs.
  • Internal consistency, reliability, and responsiveness were commonly validated, though no OROMs reported measurement error.
  • LOAD was considered formative, and internal consistency assessment was deemed unnecessary.
  • CBPI and COI showed sufficient internal consistency, but CBPI’s factor structure was inconsistent across studies.
  • All 6 evaluated OROMs (CBPI, COI, LOAD, BHSII, HCPI, HVAS) were quick to complete (under 5 min).
  • Three tools—BHSII, HCPI, HVAS—need more evidence before recommendation; only CBPI, COI, and LOAD are Category A (recommended).
  • Future studies should assess interpretability, including measurement error and clinically meaningful change scores (MIC, SDC).

Radke

Veterinary Surgery

2

2022

Evidence‐based evaluation of owner‐reported outcome measures for canine orthopedic care – a COSMIN evaluation of 6 instruments

2022-2-VS-radke-1

Article Title: Evidence‐based evaluation of owner‐reported outcome measures for canine orthopedic care – a COSMIN evaluation of 6 instruments

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

In Low 2025 et al., on machine-learning outcomes in IVDE, what was the performance of the XGBoost model when using only preoperative variables?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The preoperative-only XGBoost model had AUC 0.8271 and accuracy 71.9%.
Incorrect. The correct answer is AUC 0.8271, Accuracy 71.9%.
The preoperative-only XGBoost model had AUC 0.8271 and accuracy 71.9%.

🔍 Key Findings

The study included 162 deep-pain-negative dogs undergoing decompressive surgery (hemilaminectomy) for acute thoracolumbar intervertebral disc extrusion (IVDE).

Ambulatory recovery occurred in 53.1% of dogs (86/162).

The best performing machine-learning model was XGBoost, with an AUC of 0.9502 and accuracy of 89.1%, outperforming Ridge, AdaBoost, and Naive Bayes models.

Preoperative-only XGBoost models were less accurate, with AUC dropping to 0.8271 and accuracy to 71.9%.

Top predictive features (by SHAP analysis) included:

  1. T2-weighted to L2 spinal cord signal ratio (lower values predicted better outcome)
  2. Use of fenestration (presence associated with better recovery)
  3. Hospitalization duration
  4. Imaging modality used
  5. Duration of nonambulatory status

Machine learning provided better insight into prognostic factors than traditional statistical methods.

Low

Veterinary Surgery

4

2025

Machine-learning-based prediction of functional recovery in deep-pain-negative dogs after decompressive thoracolumbar hemilaminectomy for acute intervertebral disc extrusion

2025-4-VS-low-5

Article Title: Machine-learning-based prediction of functional recovery in deep-pain-negative dogs after decompressive thoracolumbar hemilaminectomy for acute intervertebral disc extrusion

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

In Gomes 2025 et al., on subdural shunting for TL-AD, what was the significant long-term outcome of SDS placement compared to durotomy alone?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. 85.7% of dogs with SDS improved long-term vs. 41.7% with durotomy alone (p = 0.04).
Incorrect. The correct answer is Significantly improved long-term neurological recovery.
85.7% of dogs with SDS improved long-term vs. 41.7% with durotomy alone (p = 0.04).

🔍 Key Findings

  • Modified subdural shunt (SDS) placement was adapted from prior techniques using a hemilaminectomy approach and no suturing of the dura or shunt.
  • Dogs receiving SDS had significantly better long-term outcomes (85.7% improved) compared to those with durotomy alone (41.7%).
  • Recurrence rate was lower in the SDS group (14.3%) than control (41.7%), though not statistically significant.
  • Most recurrences occurred in Pugs (5/7), suggesting a breed predisposition.
  • Shunt size was limited to 25% of spinal cord diameter, typically 3–3.5 Fr.
  • CSF flow through the shunt was confirmed intraoperatively, supporting the role of SDS in maintaining flow and possibly preventing recurrence.
  • Immediate postoperative outcomes were not different between groups (≈42% deteriorated), but long-term recovery was better with SDS.
  • Steroid use pre-surgery did not correlate with improved outcome; fewer SDS dogs received steroids pre-op.

Gomes

Veterinary Surgery

5

2025

Post‐surgical outcome and recurrence rates in thoracolumbar arachnoid diverticula undergoing durotomy alone or alongside a modified technique of subdural shunt-placement in dogs

2025-5-VS-gomes-2

Article Title: Post‐surgical outcome and recurrence rates in thoracolumbar arachnoid diverticula undergoing durotomy alone or alongside a modified technique of subdural shunt-placement in dogs

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

In Ferreira 2025 et al., on tibial torsion measurement, how did the traditional method compare in interobserver agreement?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. The traditional method had moderate interobserver agreement (ICC = 0.52).
Incorrect. The correct answer is ICC = 0.52.
The traditional method had moderate interobserver agreement (ICC = 0.52).

🔍 Key Findings

Objective: Validate a new 3D CT-based method for measuring tibial torsion in dogs with MPL, comparing it to a traditional method.

Sample: 40 tibiae from client-owned dogs with MPL (primarily small-breed).

Repeatability (intraobserver):

  • New method: ICC = 0.99 → excellent agreement

Reproducibility (interobserver):

  • New method: ICC = 0.83 → high agreement
  • Traditional method: ICC = 0.52 → moderate agreement

Torsion angle measurements:

  • New method avg: 16.00° ± 8.77
  • Traditional method avg: 8.76° ± 4.92

Conclusion: The new method is more repeatable, reproducible, and provides higher torsion values than the traditional Aper method, especially reliable for small-breed dogs.

Ferreira

Veterinary Surgery

3

2025

Repeatability and reproducibility of a tomographic method for measuring tibial torsion in dogs with medial patellar luxation

2025-3-VS-ferreira-4

Article Title: Repeatability and reproducibility of a tomographic method for measuring tibial torsion in dogs with medial patellar luxation

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

In Low 2025 et al., on gonadectomy and CrCLD, what was the pooled odds ratio for male Labrador retrievers that were gonadectomized versus intact?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Male Labrador retrievers had a significantly increased risk of CrCLD following gonadectomy, with a pooled OR of 2.13.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 2.13 (95% CI: 1.53–2.98).
Male Labrador retrievers had a significantly increased risk of CrCLD following gonadectomy, with a pooled OR of 2.13.

🔍 Key Findings

Increased risk with gonadectomy:

  • Pooled OR for CrCLD:
    • Females: 2.29 (95% CI: 1.77–2.95)
    • Males: 2.12 (95% CI: 1.67–2.69)

Early gonadectomy (≤1 year) further increased risk:

  • OR vs >1 year:
    • Females: 3.39
    • Males: 3.13

Late gonadectomy (>1 year) had no significant difference vs intact dogs.

Breed-specific findings:

  • Female Labradors: No increased CrCLD risk from gonadectomy (OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 0.54–2.64)
  • Male Labradors: Increased risk persisted (OR = 2.13; 95% CI: 1.53–2.98)

Study type: Systematic review + meta-analysis of 24 observational studies (n = 1.85 million dogs)

Low

Veterinary Surgery

2

2025

The association between gonadectomy and timing of gonadectomy, and the risk of canine cranial cruciate ligament disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2025-2-VS-low-3

Article Title: The association between gonadectomy and timing of gonadectomy, and the risk of canine cranial cruciate ligament disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

In Evers 2022 et al., on bone-to-tendon plate fixation, what was the purpose of using human placental matrix (hPM)?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. hPM was used for its pro-angiogenic and regenerative properties, despite uncertain efficacy in this case.
Incorrect. The correct answer is To stimulate angiogenesis and support healing.
hPM was used for its pro-angiogenic and regenerative properties, despite uncertain efficacy in this case.

🔍 Key Findings

  • Bone-to-tendon plate fixation allowed successful stabilization of a highly comminuted calcaneus fracture in a dog with fragments too small for traditional fixation.
  • The plate was sutured to the common calcaneal tendon using a figure-of-8 pattern, bypassing the need for screw fixation into small proximal fragments.
  • Radiographic union was achieved by 17 weeks, though considered delayed, with the dog returning to normal function by 36 weeks post-op.
  • A second surgery was required to replace the tendon-anchored plate with a calcaneus-only plate due to skin ulceration and implant prominence.
  • Implant-associated infection was suspected; cultures confirmed Staphylococcus pseudintermedius, managed with doxycycline and clindamycin.
  • Use of human placental matrix (hPM) and both autogenous and allogenic bone grafts supported healing, though their specific contribution remains uncertain.
  • Postoperative complications included delayed union and skin ulceration, emphasizing challenges of implant design and soft tissue management.
  • This is the first report of using a bone-to-tendon plate for a calcaneus fracture in dogs and demonstrates its potential in cases where traditional methods are not viable.

Evers

Veterinary Surgery

5

2022

Use of a bone‐to‐tendon plate to stabilize a comminuted calcaneus fracture in a dog

2022-5-VS-evers-3

Article Title: Use of a bone‐to‐tendon plate to stabilize a comminuted calcaneus fracture in a dog

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

In Saitoh 2025 et al., on CTS stabilization, which group of dogs all returned to work after CTS stabilization?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. All 5 working farm dogs returned to work postoperatively.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Farm dogs with instability.
All 5 working farm dogs returned to work postoperatively.

🔍 Key Findings

Study population: 12 dogs with medial or lateral tarsocrural joint instability (TCI), including 5 working farm dogs.
Procedure: Temporary immobilization using a calcaneotibial screw (CTS) combined with external coaptation (EC).
Stabilization techniques:

  • 3 dogs = primary ligamentous repair
  • 8 dogs = synthetic ligament reconstruction
  • 2 dogs = malleolar fracture repair

Follow-up: Median 31 months (range 4–66); 10 owners completed outcome survey.
Outcomes:

  • All 10 dogs had improved or resolved lameness.
  • All 5 farm dogs returned to work (most at full or substantial capacity).
  • Complication rate: 4 distinct events in 3 dogs (1 major = CTS breakage; 3 minor = bandage-related soft tissue injuries).

Conclusion: CTS + EC provided effective immobilization with low complication rate, and functional outcomes were favorable even in active dogs.

Saitoh

Veterinary Surgery

1

2025

Retrospective evaluation of postoperative joint immobilization using a temporary calcaneotibial screw for medial or lateral tarsocrural joint instability in dogs

2025-1-VS-saitoh-4

Article Title: Retrospective evaluation of postoperative joint immobilization using a temporary calcaneotibial screw for medial or lateral tarsocrural joint instability in dogs

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

In Hawker 2024 et al., on checklist attitudes, what proportion of ACVS diplomates reported using a surgical safety checklist (SSC)?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Survey data indicated 67.9% of respondents used an SSC at their practice.
Incorrect. The correct answer is 67.9%.
Survey data indicated 67.9% of respondents used an SSC at their practice.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 67.9% of respondents reported using SSCs, with most indicating frequent use (64% used in every surgery).
  • 78.7% agreed SSCs reduce complications, and 89.6% believed SSCs improve communication.
  • Respondents not using SSCs were more likely to view them as a waste of time (p < .001).
  • Forgetfulness (39.6%) and time constraints (36.5%) were leading reasons for checklist noncompletion.
  • Only 23.3% had SSC training during surgical residency, with newer diplomates more likely to have had exposure (p < .001).
  • Key strategies to improve uptake included: staff feedback modifications (67.9%), formal designation of initiator (48.6%), and training (52.2%).
  • Surgeons and OR staff were most commonly identified as noncompliant team members.
  • SSC use was more frequent in small animal practices, and mandating SSCs by management was favored but not always effective alone.

Hawker

Veterinary Surgery

5

2024

Attitudes towards surgical safety checklists among American College of Veterinary Surgeons diplomates

2024-5-VS-hawker-1

Article Title: Attitudes towards surgical safety checklists among American College of Veterinary Surgeons diplomates

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

In Farrell 2022 et al., on checklist reliability in OVH simulation, what was the main benefit of using digital recordings for student performance assessment?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. Digital recordings allowed multiple raters to evaluate performance without introducing bias.
Incorrect. The correct answer is Enabled blinded multi-rater evaluation.
Digital recordings allowed multiple raters to evaluate performance without introducing bias.

🔍 Key Findings

  • 39 of 40 checklist items for simulated OVH surgical assessment had good content validity (CVI = 0.81)
  • Only 1 of 6 items from the OSATS GRS (respect for tissue) met inclusion criteria (CVI = 0.80)
  • Checklist showed strong reliability (G-coefficient = 0.85) for moderate-stakes exams
  • Modified OSATS GRS showed acceptable reliability (G-coefficient = 0.79)
  • Two raters needed for acceptable reliability in high-stakes exams when using the checklist
  • Minimal interrater bias found; variance largely due to interaction among student, rater, and item
  • Digital recordings were a reliable method of evaluating surgical performance
  • Study supports using checklist over OSATS GRS for assessing preclinical students on simulated models

Farrell

Veterinary Surgery

5

2022

Evaluating validity evidence for 2 instruments developed to assess students' surgical skills in a simulated environment

2022-5-VS-farrell-5

Article Title: Evaluating validity evidence for 2 instruments developed to assess students' surgical skills in a simulated environment

Journal: Veterinary Surgery

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

In Socha 2024 et al., which ligament had the **lowest** T2* short component (T2*S) value?

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Correct. CdCL had the lowest T2*S mean value (0.41 ms) of the three ligaments studied:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Incorrect. The correct answer is Caudal cruciate ligament.
CdCL had the lowest T2*S mean value (0.41 ms) of the three ligaments studied:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}

🔍 Key Findings Summary

  • Normative ultrashort echo time (UTE) MRI T2* values were established for:
    • Patellar ligament (PL): T2*L = 4.65 ms
    • Cranial cruciate ligament (CrCL): T2*L = 5.99 ms
    • Caudal cruciate ligament (CdCL): T2*L = 7.06 ms
  • Statistically significant differences in T2*L values were found between:
    • PL vs. CrCL (p = 0.03)
    • PL vs. CdCL (p = 0.0097)
    • CrCL vs. CdCL (p = 0.03)
  • No significant differences in short T2* (T2*S) values across ligaments.
  • Study highlights potential of UTE MRI to detect early ligament changes even without physical instability.
  • May guide early diagnosis in partial CrCL rupture where standard MRI is limited.

Socha

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

2

2024

Ultrashort Echo Time Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Cruciate Ligaments in Normal Beagles

2024-2-VCOT-socha-4

Article Title: Ultrashort Echo Time Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Cruciate Ligaments in Normal Beagles

Journal: Veterinary and Comparative Orthopedics and Traumatology

How "Board-worthy" is this question?

🔥100% would expect this on the real thing

🤔Useful, but not core exam material

🗑️Not relevant or too off-base

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the question vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

Quiz Results

Topic: Research & Evidence
70%

You answered 7 out of 10 questions correctly

Question 1:

❌ Incorrect. You answered: Answer

Correct answer:

Rationale

Question 1:

✅ Correct! You answered: Answer

Rationale

Author: Journal Name - 2025

Article Title

Key Findings

Something off with this question?
Tell us what needs fixing—drop your note below.

You’re flagging: [question text]

Thanks for your feedback!
We’ll review your comment as soon as possible.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.