Using SYRCLE Tools to Evaluate the Methodological Quality of Animal Experiments of Stroke in China_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

 SHUANGMei ^1,2 , ZHAOChen ¹ , ZHANGLi ³ ,  SHANGHong-cai ⁴

1. Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 300193, China;
2. Inner Mongolia International Mongolian Hospital, Hohhot 010065, China;
3. The Second Affiliated Hospital, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 300150, China;
4. Key Laboratory of Chinese Internal Medicine, Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100700, China;

Corresponding?author：

SHANGHong-cai, Email: shanghongcai@126.com

Keywords：

SYRCLE; Stroke; Animal experiments; Methodological quality

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20160091

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective Using SYRCLE tool (the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation) to evaluate the risk of bias of animal studies in stroke field published in Chinese journals, identify problems of these studies in design, implementation and measurement, in order to provide references for improving the quality of animal studies in China. Methods We searched databases including CBM, VIP, CNKI and WanFang Data from inception to December 31^st, 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included animal studies using SYRCLE tool developed by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. Results A total of 582 studies were included. The assessment results showed that the number of reported items with "Low Risk" in SYRCLE, which have 22 items, reported in >50% of the 4 items and in <30% the 16 items in articles of animals experiments. More than 99% of the studies fulfilled the 3 items and more than 17% of the articles to meet the 10 items while less than 1% of the documents met the 17 items. The quality of studies increased excepted the period of 2010 to 2014. The methodological quality of animal experiments presented a trend of increasing and no significant differences were found in CSCD indexed or not. Conclusion The methodological quality of animal experiments of stroke is poor in China in terms of the selection bias, implementation bias, measurement bias, withdraw bias and reporting bias.

Citation： SHUANGMei, ZHAOChen, ZHANGLi, SHANGHong-cai. Using SYRCLE Tools to Evaluate the Methodological Quality of Animal Experiments of Stroke in China. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2016, 16(5): 592-597. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20160091 Copy

1.	賀爭鳴, 邢瑞昌, 方喜業, 等. 論實驗動物福利、動物實驗與動物實驗替代方法. 實驗動物科學與管理雜志, 2005, 22(1): 61-64.
2.	Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, et al. SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014, 14: 43.
3.	Sandercock P, Roberts I. Systematic reviews of animal experiments. Lancet, 2002, 360 (9333): 586.
4.	陳匡陽, 馬彬, 王亞楠, 等. SYRCLE動物實驗偏倚風險評估工具簡介. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2014, 14(10): 1281-1285.
5.	Hooijmans CR, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Progress in using systematic reviews of animal studies to improve translational research. PLoS Medicine, 2013, 10 (7): e1001482.
6.	Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, et al. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ, 2002, 324 (7335): 474-476.
7.	Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, et al. Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals. PLoS ONE, 2009, 4(11): e7824.
8.	Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, et al. SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14: 43.
9.	Hooijmans CR, Pasker-de Jong PC, de Vries RB, et al. The effects of long-term omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cognition and Alzheimer's pathology in animal models of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis, 2012, 28(1): 191-209.
10.	Krauth D, Woodruff TJ, Bero L. Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect, 2013, 121(9): 985-992.
11.	Sena E, van der Worp HB, Howells D, et al. How can we improve the preclinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends Neurosci, 2007, 3D(9): 433-439.
12.	Wever KE, Menting TP, Rovers M, et al. Ischemic preconditioning in the animal kidney, a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2012, 7(2): e32296.
13.	Thayer K, Rooney A, Boyles A, et al. Draft protocol for systematic review to evaluate the evidence for an association between bisphenol A (BPA) exposure and obesity. In National Toxicology Program. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013.
14.	Schwarz F, Iglhaut G, Becker J. Quality assessment of reporting of animal studies on pathogenesis and treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. A systematic review using the ARRIVE guidelines. J Clin Periodontol, 2012, 39(Suppl. 12): 63-72.
15.	Johnston NA, Nevalainen T. Impact of biotic and abiotic environment on animal experiments. In Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science (Book 1). 3rd edition. Edited by Hau JS. Raton B. Florida: CRC Press, 2010: 343-369.
16.	Donnelly H, Saibaba P. Light intensity and the oestrous cycle in albino and normally pigmented mice. Lab Anim, 1993, 27(4): 385-390.
17.	Vanderschuren LJMJ, Niesink RJ, Spruijt BM, et al. Influence of environmental factors on social play behavior of juvenile rats. Physiol Behav, 1995, 58(1): 119-123.
18.	Currow DC, Plummer JL, Kutner JS, et al. Analyzing phase Ⅲ studies in hospice/palliative care. a solution that sits between intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses: the palliative-modified ITT analysis. J Pain Symptom Manage, 2012, 44(4): 595-603.
19.	Surkont G, Wla?lak E, Dunicz-Sokolowska A, et al. The efficacy of SUI treatment with Burch colposuspension evaluated with use of ITT analysis. Ginekol Pol, 2007, 78(5): 378-380.
20.	Zhou XH, Li SM. TT analysis of randomized encouragement design studies with missing data. Stat Med, 2006, 25(16): 2737-2761.
21.	牛軍強, 王亞楠, 朱芊各, 等. 動物實驗方法學和報告質量評估工具的橫斷面研究. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2015, 15(2): 223-229.
22.	Kilenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, et al. Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol, 2010, 8(6): e1000412.
23.	Hooijmans CR, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, et al. A gold Standard publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the Three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible. Altern Lab Anim, 2010, 38(2): 167-182.
24.	Vesterinen HM, Egan K, Deister A, et al. Systematic survey of the design, statistical analysis, and reporting of studies published in the 2008 volume of the Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2011, 31(4): 1064-1072.
25.	Lamontagne F, Briel M, Duffett M, et al. Systematic review of reviews including animal studies addressing therapeutic interventions for sepsis. Crit Care Med, 2010, 38(12): 2401-2408.

1. 賀爭鳴, 邢瑞昌, 方喜業, 等. 論實驗動物福利、動物實驗與動物實驗替代方法. 實驗動物科學與管理雜志, 2005, 22(1): 61-64.
2. Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, et al. SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014, 14: 43.
3. Sandercock P, Roberts I. Systematic reviews of animal experiments. Lancet, 2002, 360 (9333): 586.
4. 陳匡陽, 馬彬, 王亞楠, 等. SYRCLE動物實驗偏倚風險評估工具簡介. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2014, 14(10): 1281-1285.
5. Hooijmans CR, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Progress in using systematic reviews of animal studies to improve translational research. PLoS Medicine, 2013, 10 (7): e1001482.
6. Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, et al. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ, 2002, 324 (7335): 474-476.
7. Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, et al. Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals. PLoS ONE, 2009, 4(11): e7824.
8. Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, et al. SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14: 43.
9. Hooijmans CR, Pasker-de Jong PC, de Vries RB, et al. The effects of long-term omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cognition and Alzheimer's pathology in animal models of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis, 2012, 28(1): 191-209.
10. Krauth D, Woodruff TJ, Bero L. Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect, 2013, 121(9): 985-992.
11. Sena E, van der Worp HB, Howells D, et al. How can we improve the preclinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends Neurosci, 2007, 3D(9): 433-439.
12. Wever KE, Menting TP, Rovers M, et al. Ischemic preconditioning in the animal kidney, a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2012, 7(2): e32296.
13. Thayer K, Rooney A, Boyles A, et al. Draft protocol for systematic review to evaluate the evidence for an association between bisphenol A (BPA) exposure and obesity. In National Toxicology Program. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013.
14. Schwarz F, Iglhaut G, Becker J. Quality assessment of reporting of animal studies on pathogenesis and treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. A systematic review using the ARRIVE guidelines. J Clin Periodontol, 2012, 39(Suppl. 12): 63-72.
15. Johnston NA, Nevalainen T. Impact of biotic and abiotic environment on animal experiments. In Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science (Book 1). 3rd edition. Edited by Hau JS. Raton B. Florida: CRC Press, 2010: 343-369.
16. Donnelly H, Saibaba P. Light intensity and the oestrous cycle in albino and normally pigmented mice. Lab Anim, 1993, 27(4): 385-390.
17. Vanderschuren LJMJ, Niesink RJ, Spruijt BM, et al. Influence of environmental factors on social play behavior of juvenile rats. Physiol Behav, 1995, 58(1): 119-123.
18. Currow DC, Plummer JL, Kutner JS, et al. Analyzing phase Ⅲ studies in hospice/palliative care. a solution that sits between intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses: the palliative-modified ITT analysis. J Pain Symptom Manage, 2012, 44(4): 595-603.
19. Surkont G, Wla?lak E, Dunicz-Sokolowska A, et al. The efficacy of SUI treatment with Burch colposuspension evaluated with use of ITT analysis. Ginekol Pol, 2007, 78(5): 378-380.
20. Zhou XH, Li SM. TT analysis of randomized encouragement design studies with missing data. Stat Med, 2006, 25(16): 2737-2761.
21. 牛軍強, 王亞楠, 朱芊各, 等. 動物實驗方法學和報告質量評估工具的橫斷面研究. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2015, 15(2): 223-229.
22. Kilenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, et al. Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol, 2010, 8(6): e1000412.
23. Hooijmans CR, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, et al. A gold Standard publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the Three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible. Altern Lab Anim, 2010, 38(2): 167-182.
24. Vesterinen HM, Egan K, Deister A, et al. Systematic survey of the design, statistical analysis, and reporting of studies published in the 2008 volume of the Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2011, 31(4): 1064-1072.
25. Lamontagne F, Briel M, Duffett M, et al. Systematic review of reviews including animal studies addressing therapeutic interventions for sepsis. Crit Care Med, 2010, 38(12): 2401-2408.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Using SYRCLE Tools to Evaluate the Methodological Quality of Animal Experiments of Stroke in China

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content