Table 3.

General guide to interpreting the authors' levels of recommendation based on voting.

Level of recommendation	General interpretation of this recommendation
Unanimous recommendation	•Unanimous support for this management approach/treatment for dogs with the specified stage of OA. •Sufficient high-quality evidence, supported by personal experience. •The benefit: harm evaluation favors treatment use.
Majority recommendation	•No unanimous support for this management approach/treatment for dogs with the specified stage of OA but sufficient evidence for most of the group to recommend it as a treatment option. •The benefit: harm evaluation favors use in the opinion of the majority.
Minority recommendation	•No unanimous support for this management approach/treatment for dogs with the specified stage of OA. •Weaker evidence-based support relative to other options, with only a minority of the group recommending it as an option. •The benefit is considered at least equal to or better than the risk. •Individual patient factors are likely to be a significant consideration when considering the use.
Not a recommendation currently	•Unanimous agreement that this approach could not currently be recommended. •Insufficient evidence and lack of personal endorsement. •In some instances, the benefit: harm evaluation was of concern.

Each author voted independently, based on their understanding of, and interpretation of, the literature (e.g., Table 2) and their personal experience. Thus, levels of recommendation are based on the sum of individual authors' interpretations and voting, not a group consensus on a set of criteria.