Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Victoria Nelson x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search



To characterize how class rank and other criteria are used to evaluate applicants for veterinary internship and residency positions.


Program directors for 572 internship and residency programs.


A survey was sent to program directors asking them to score the importance of 7 items (cover letter, letters of reference, curriculum vitae, veterinary class rank, grade point average, grades for classes specifically related to the internship or residency specialty area, and interview) they could use in evaluating applicants for an internship or residency and to rank those 7 items, along with an open item asking participants to list other criteria they used, from most to least important.


Responses were obtained for 195 internship and 222 residency programs. For both internship programs and residency programs, mean importance scores assigned to the 7 items resulted in the same ordering from most to least important, with letters of reference, interview, curriculum vitae, and cover letter most important. Rankings of the importance of the 7 items, along with an “other” item, were similar for internship and residency programs; the most important item was a candidate's letters of reference, followed by the interview, cover letter, and curriculum vitae.


Results suggested that although most veterinary internship and residency programs consider class rank and overall grade point average when evaluating applicants, these 2 items were not the most important. For both internship and residency programs, the most important items were an applicant's letters of reference, followed by the interview, cover letter, and curriculum vitae.

Full access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association


Objective—To investigate whether combined treatment with gemcitabine and piroxicam in dogs with transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urinary bladder is tolerated and provides an advantage in terms of survival time over previously reported treatments.

Design—Clinical trial.

Animals—38 dogs with TCC of the urinary bladder.

Procedures—Dogs were treated with gemcitabine (800 mg/m2, IV over 30 to 60 minutes, q 7 d) and piroxicam (0.3 mg/kg [0.14 mg/lb], PO, q 24 h). Complete blood cell counts were monitored prior to each gemcitabine treatment. All toxic effects of gemcitabine in dogs were recorded. Primary tumors were ultrasonographically reevaluated after 4 gemcitabine treatments.

Results—Dogs received a median of 8 gemcitabine treatments (range, 1 to 38 treatments/dog). In response to treatment, 10 of 38 (26.3%) dogs had grade 1 gastrointestinal tract signs, 11 (28.9%) had grade 2, and 5 (13.2%) had grade 3. Grade 1 neutropenia developed in 6 (15.8%) dogs and grade 2 and 3 neutropenia in 2 (5.3%) dogs each. Thrombocytopenia was rare. All dogs had improvement of clinical signs of disease. Two dogs had a complete tumor response, 8 had a partial response, 19 had stable disease, and 8 had progressive disease. Median survival time with treatment was 230 days.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Administration of gemcitabine in combination with piroxicam treatment failed to provide a longer overall survival time in dogs with TCC of the urinary bladder, compared with previously reported treatment strategies. However, this combination of chemotherapy did provide a new treatment alternative with fewer adverse effects.

Full access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association