LAISHA
Open Laisha

EBVS European College diplomas Veterinary Research Methodology & Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine: practice questions

EBVS European College diplomas (e.g. DipECVS, DipECVIM-CA) · Europe · European Board of Veterinary Specialisation and the individual colleges

Original practice questions written to the published syllabus · not past papers
10worked here, free
36written to this exam in this subject
8syllabus units

What this subject covers

Designing research, appraising evidence and writing it up: study design, critical appraisal, systematic reviews, research ethics, scientific and grant writing.

In the exams: AVMA COE competency on research; EAEVE Day One competences; ICAR AICE-JRF (research methodology unit)

Where the 36 questions fall

How our questions for EBVS European College diplomas spread across the units of Veterinary Research Methodology & Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine. Difficulty: 0 easy, 17 medium, 19 hard.

Systematic reviews7
Research design6
Literature searching4
Levels of evidence4
Critical appraisal4
Research ethics4
Scientific writing4
Grant writing3

10 practice questions, worked

Choose an answer, then open the working. Each explanation says why the right answer is right and why the others are not.

1 · Research design · hard

An observational study reports that cats fed a commercial renal diet live longer than cats on maintenance diets. Investigators adjust for serum creatinine measured after six months on the diet. Why is this adjustment a problem?

  1. Creatinine after six months lies on the causal path, so adjusting removes part of the diet effect
  2. Creatinine is a confounder that must always be adjusted for, so the adjustment is correct
  3. Creatinine is affected by muscle mass, so the adjustment only biases the result towards harm
  4. Adjustment for any laboratory variable is invalid in observational studies of nutrition
Answer and working

A. Creatinine after six months lies on the causal path, so adjusting removes part of the diet effect

A variable affected by the exposure and in turn affecting the outcome is an intermediate (mediator). Adjusting for it as a confounder removes part of the real effect. Baseline creatinine, measured before diet, would be a legitimate confounder.

Further reading: Dohoo, Martin and Stryhn, Veterinary Epidemiologic Research

2 · Research design · medium

A new non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug is cheaper than the standard one. Investigators want to show it is not worse than the standard by more than a pre-set margin for pain scores. Which trial design is this?

  1. A superiority trial
  2. An equivalence trial
  3. A crossover bioequivalence study
  4. A non-inferiority trial
Answer and working

D. A non-inferiority trial

Non-inferiority tests one direction only: that the new treatment is not worse by more than the margin. An equivalence trial tests both directions, and a superiority trial tests whether it is better.

Further reading: Dohoo, Martin and Stryhn, Veterinary Epidemiologic Research

3 · Critical appraisal · medium

Which of the following is a domain of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2 (RoB 2) for randomised trials?

  1. Bias due to the journal's impact factor
  2. Bias due to missing outcome data
  3. Bias due to the size of the funding grant
  4. Bias due to the country of the trial site
Answer and working

B. Bias due to missing outcome data

RoB 2 has five domains: randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome and selection of the reported result. Journal, funding size and country are not domains.

Further reading: Straus et al., Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM

4 · Systematic reviews · medium

A meta-analysis of 8 studies reports Cochran's Q = 5.0. What is I-squared?

  1. 38%
  2. 0%
  3. 63%
  4. -40%
Answer and working

B. 0%

df = 7, and Q is less than df. I-squared = (5 - 7)/5 = -40%, which by definition is set to zero. 63% is 5/8 and 38% is 3/8; -40% forgets the floor at zero.

Further reading: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; PRISMA 2020

5 · Systematic reviews · hard

A fixed-effect meta-analysis gives a pooled log odds ratio of 0.48 with a total inverse-variance weight of 31.25. What is the 95% confidence interval for the pooled odds ratio?

  1. 1.52 to 1.72
  2. 1.14 to 2.29
  3. 0.13 to 0.83
  4. 1.02 to 2.56
Answer and working

B. 1.14 to 2.29

SE = 1/sqrt(31.25) = 0.179. Log CI = 0.48 +/- 1.96 x 0.179 = 0.129 to 0.831; exponentiated, 1.14 to 2.29. 0.13 to 0.83 forgets to exponentiate; 1.52 to 1.72 uses the variance (0.032) as the SE; 1.02 to 2.56 uses the 99% multiplier (2.58) instead of 1.96.

Further reading: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; PRISMA 2020

6 · Systematic reviews · medium

How does a scoping review differ from a systematic review of effectiveness?

  1. It searches only a single database to save time and reports no strategy
  2. It pools effect sizes in a meta-analysis but skips any formal search step
  3. It maps the extent and nature of evidence and usually does not appraise or pool
  4. It is restricted to randomised trials and requires a GRADE certainty rating
Answer and working

C. It maps the extent and nature of evidence and usually does not appraise or pool

Scoping reviews chart a broad field, often to identify gaps, and are reported with PRISMA-ScR. They still use systematic searching but typically do not assess risk of bias or pool effects.

Further reading: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; PRISMA 2020

7 · Grant writing · medium

A proposal has three aims; aims 2 and 3 can only start if aim 1 produces a positive result. Why do reviewers often criticise this?

  1. Reviewers expect exactly two aims, so a third aim always counts against a bid
  2. Sequential aims make the budget impossible to divide into separate cost lines
  3. Funders forbid any dependency between aims in their published call guidance
  4. If aim 1 fails, the whole project fails, so the aims should be able to stand alone
Answer and working

D. If aim 1 fails, the whole project fails, so the aims should be able to stand alone

Interdependent aims are a common reason for rejection; good proposals design aims that each yield useful results, or give alternative strategies if an early aim fails.

Further reading: Funder guidance documents; Cochrane Handbook (protocols)

8 · Grant writing · hard

Which section of a proposal most directly justifies the number of animals to an animal-welfare reviewer and to a scientific panel at the same time?

  1. A statement that the same number was used in an earlier published study on the same topic
  2. A sample-size calculation based on the primary outcome, expected effect and variability
  3. A budget line showing the cost of animals is within the funder's maximum per project
  4. A Gantt chart showing that all animals can be housed in the facility at the same time
Answer and working

B. A sample-size calculation based on the primary outcome, expected effect and variability

A justified sample size serves Reduction and scientific rigour: enough animals to answer the question, no more. Copying an earlier study's number or fitting the budget does not justify it.

Further reading: Funder guidance documents; Cochrane Handbook (protocols)

9 · Research ethics · medium

Under EU Directive 2010/63/EU, what must a project authorisation for animal research include?

  1. A harm-benefit analysis and classification of procedures by severity
  2. A guarantee that no animal will experience any pain at all in the project
  3. Approval from the journal in which the results will later be published
  4. Evidence that the same work has already been done in another EU country
Answer and working

A. A harm-benefit analysis and classification of procedures by severity

The Directive requires project evaluation with a harm-benefit analysis and severity classification. Severity may be up to 'severe' under strict conditions, so a no-pain guarantee is not the requirement.

Further reading: Russell and Burch (1959); Directive 2010/63/EU; ICMJE Recommendations; COPE

10 · Grant writing · medium

Which statement about indirect costs (overheads) in research grants is correct?

  1. They are always fixed at exactly 20% of direct costs by international agreement
  2. They must be spent on consumables used directly in the animal experiments
  3. They are paid only by industry sponsors and never by public research councils
  4. Funders calculate them differently, so the call's own rules must be checked
Answer and working

D. Funders calculate them differently, so the call's own rules must be checked

Indirect costs cover estates, administration and services; funders may pay a percentage of direct or total costs, a fixed rate, a share of full economic cost, or nothing.

Further reading: Funder guidance documents; Cochrane Handbook (protocols)

Ten here, 36 in the app. The Laisha app has every practice question we have written to EBVS European College diplomas in this subject, marked as you go, with timed papers, a jump-to-unanswered list and a certificate when you pass at 70 per cent.

Free for ten days, then one subscription of US$10 a month. We would rather say so here than have you find it later.

Practise the full set in Laisha →

Read the subject

Veterinary Research Methodology & Evidence-Based Veterinary MedicineThe full study manual, free EBVS European College diplomasFormat, sections and how it has changed

More EBVS European College diplomas practice

Wildlife, Zoo Animal & Conservation MedicineLaboratory Animal Science & MedicineMilk & Meat Hygiene, Food Safety & Public HealthLivestock Production Management II: Monogastric and Laboratory AnimalsVeterinary Epidemiology & Zoonoses

Veterinary Research Methodology & Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine for other exams

ASRB NET and ARS / SMS / STO · IndiaICAR AICE-JRF/SRF · IndiaAVMA ABVS-recognised specialty boards · USA

Ask Laisha about this

Opens Laisha's chat with your question ready to send. Sign in or start free.