| Country and state/province |
The country the trial took place: Australia (AUS), Canada (CAN), Mexico (MEX), South Africa (SAFR), or the United States of America (US). The U.S. state or territory/province, for non-US countries, was also extracted. |
| Site type |
Whether the trial was performed at a research (“research”) or commercial (“commercial”) facility. |
| Pen/paddock size |
The article authors’ reported capacity range for each pen/paddock or the reported number of animals allotted to each pen/paddock was categorized as “≤ 15,” “16–50,” “51–350,” “≥ 351,” “pen size varied,” or “unspecified”. |
| Trial size |
The total number of animals in the trial as reported by the authors. |
| Production stage when the intervention was applied |
The production stage when the intervention was applied using the following categories: cow-calf, backgrounder or stocker, and feedlot. |
| Intervention |
Interventions were categorized as vaccination, parenteral antimicrobials, parasite control, feeding, management, and multiple interventions. |
| Statement of primary and secondary objectives |
“Yes” if: the article authors had unambiguously stated their primary and secondary objectives(s), if applicable, there was only one outcome measured, or the article authors reported a sample size/power analysis in which case the outcome used in the calculation was assumed to be the primary outcome and all other outcomes were placed as secondary if stated in the objectives; otherwise this data item was recorded as “no.” |
| The outcomes of interest |
Outcomes were categorized as carcass, economic, health, and live performance. |
| Animal outcomes used to derive the cost/benefit of the intervention; if they were a stated primary objective |
Which of the measured outcomes were used to derive the cost and benefits of the intervention using the categories: “all,” “significant only,” “some,” “none,” or “not reported.” If the outcomes used to determine the cost and benefits of the intervention were “significant only” or “some,” the reviewers extracted if at least one of these outcomes were included in the article authors’ stated primary objectives (“yes”/“no”). If the article authors did not report their primary objective(s), it was extracted as “not reported.” |
| If the analytic methods for the economic/financial assessment were reported |
If the economic/financial assessment methods as reported had enough information to be repeated (“yes”/“no”). |
| If the authors reported the type of economic assessment used |
If the article authors identified the type of economic assessment used (“yes”/“no”). |
| Type of economic assessment used |
As reported in the text by the article authors or if the type of economic assessment was not reported, the methods were categorized by a content expert (i.e., agricultural economist) as “gross margin analysis,” “enterprise budget,” “break-even analysis,” “partial budget,” “decision analysis,” or “cost–benefit analysis.” |
| Values used in the economic assessment reported |
If “all,” “some,” or “none” of the values used in the economic/financial assessment were reported. |
| Research methods or sources for value described and/or cited; type of sources used |
If “all,” “some,” or “none” of the values or methods used in the economic/financial assessment were sourced. If “all” or “some” of the values were sourced, the source was categorized as “public,” “private,” or “commercial service.” |
| Dates the values were estimated and/or sourced reported |
If the date of the values were estimated and/or sourced was reported (“yes”/“no”). |
