Methodological and reporting quality of systematic review/meta-analysis of animal studies_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHAO Fei ^1,2 ^# , TANG Xiaoyu ^2,3 ^# , KOU Chengkun ^2,3 , LI Han ^2,4 , WANG Hao ^2,3 , JIN Qiqi ^2,4 , TONG Xiwen ^2,4 , ZHAO Lulu ^2,4 , LIAO Xuliang ^2,3 , LIU Xia ⁵ ,  MA Bin ^2,6

1. School of Medicine, Northwest Minzu University, Lanzhou, 730030, P.R.China;
2. Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
3. The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
4. The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
5. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
6. Key laboratory of Preclinical Study for New Drugs of Gansu Province, Department of Pharmacology, School of Basic Medical Science of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;

Corresponding?author：

MA Bin, Email: kitty_mab@163.com

Keywords：

Animal study; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Current situation analysis

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201803091

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

ObjectivesTo survey the current research situation, methodological and reporting quality of the systematic review/meta-analysis (SRs/MAs) of animal studies.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, BIOSIS Previews, CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM and VIP databases were searched to collect SRs/MAs of animal studies from inception to June 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, a descriptive analysis was then conducted.ResultsA total of 609 SRs/MAs of animal studies were included, which were from 27 countries and published in 526 journals. Merely 36.8% (224/609) studies assessed the risk of bias in the original animal experiments. Less than 50% studies reported the method of literature selection (41.9%, 255/609), data abstraction (32.0%, 195/609) and study characteristics (41.2%, 251/609).ConclusionsThe published SRs/MAs of animal studies is poor in both methodological and reporting quality. Thus, we hope to improve awareness and actual use rates of these guidelines by basic medical researchers and journal editors, thereby improving the quality of animal experimental methods and reporting standards.

Citation： ZHAO Fei, TANG Xiaoyu, KOU Chengkun, LI Han, WANG Hao, JIN Qiqi, TONG Xiwen, ZHAO Lulu, LIAO Xuliang, LIU Xia, MA Bin. Methodological and reporting quality of systematic review/meta-analysis of animal studies. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2018, 18(8): 871-877. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201803091 Copy

1.	Macleod MR, O'Collins T, Horky LL, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis of the efficacy of FK506 in experimental stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2005, 25(6): 713-721.
2.	Festing MF. The scope for improving the design of laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim, 1992, 26(4): 256-268.
3.	Festing MF. The design and statistical analysis of animal experiments. ILAR J, 2002, 43(4): 191-193.
4.	Kroll MW, Anderson KM, Supino CG, et al. Decline in defibrillation thresholds. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 1993, 16(1 Pt 2): 213-217.
5.	Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Leenaars M, Avey M, et al. Systematic reviews of preclinical animal studies can make significant contributions to health care and more transparent translational medicine. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014, (3): ED000078.
6.	van Luijk J, Bakker B, Rovers MM, et al. Systematic reviews of animal studies; missing link in translational research? PLoS One, 2014, 9(3): e89981.
7.	陳匡陽, 王亞楠, 趙雅琴, 等. 國內動物實驗系統評價/Meta 分析研究的現狀分析. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2015, 15(4): 414-418.
8.	Korevaar DA, Hooft L, ter Riet G. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim, 2011, 45(4): 225-230.
9.	Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B, 2006, 41(7): 1245-1258.
10.	包呼格吉樂圖, 劉霞, 曾凡星. 骨骼肌肥大動物模型形態學研究的系統量化分析. 成都體育學院學報, 2004, 30(6): 72-75.
11.	Briel M, Müller KF, Meerpohl JJ, et al. Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol. Systematic Reviews, 2013, 2(1): 23.
12.	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.
13.	Macleod MR, O'Collins T, Howells DW, et al. Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias. Stroke, 2004, 35(5): 1203-1208.
14.	Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5.1.0). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
15.	Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials, 1996, 17(1): 1-12.
16.	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.
17.	Ma B, Xu JK, Wu WJ, et al. Survey of basic medical researchers on the awareness of animal experimental designs and reporting standards in China. PLoS One, 2017, 12(4): e0174530.
18.	孫西魁, 劉興龍, 馮立強. 人腺病毒感染動物模型的研究進展. 病毒學報, 2016, (6): 810-816.
19.	Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, et al. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol, 2010, 8(6): e1000412.
20.	Hooijmans CR, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. 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.
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.	周為文, 葛龍, 徐俊峰, 等. 《中國循證醫學雜志》發表的干預類系統評價/Meta 分析報告質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(4): 482-488.
23.	許家科, 趙璐璐, 廖緒亮, 等. 循證構建動物實驗系統評價制作流程. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2017, 17(11): 1357-1364.

1. Macleod MR, O'Collins T, Horky LL, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis of the efficacy of FK506 in experimental stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2005, 25(6): 713-721.
2. Festing MF. The scope for improving the design of laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim, 1992, 26(4): 256-268.
3. Festing MF. The design and statistical analysis of animal experiments. ILAR J, 2002, 43(4): 191-193.
4. Kroll MW, Anderson KM, Supino CG, et al. Decline in defibrillation thresholds. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 1993, 16(1 Pt 2): 213-217.
5. Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Leenaars M, Avey M, et al. Systematic reviews of preclinical animal studies can make significant contributions to health care and more transparent translational medicine. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014, (3): ED000078.
6. van Luijk J, Bakker B, Rovers MM, et al. Systematic reviews of animal studies; missing link in translational research? PLoS One, 2014, 9(3): e89981.
7. 陳匡陽, 王亞楠, 趙雅琴, 等. 國內動物實驗系統評價/Meta 分析研究的現狀分析. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2015, 15(4): 414-418.
8. Korevaar DA, Hooft L, ter Riet G. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim, 2011, 45(4): 225-230.
9. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B, 2006, 41(7): 1245-1258.
10. 包呼格吉樂圖, 劉霞, 曾凡星. 骨骼肌肥大動物模型形態學研究的系統量化分析. 成都體育學院學報, 2004, 30(6): 72-75.
11. Briel M, Müller KF, Meerpohl JJ, et al. Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol. Systematic Reviews, 2013, 2(1): 23.
12. 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.
13. Macleod MR, O'Collins T, Howells DW, et al. Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias. Stroke, 2004, 35(5): 1203-1208.
14. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5.1.0). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
15. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials, 1996, 17(1): 1-12.
16. 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.
17. Ma B, Xu JK, Wu WJ, et al. Survey of basic medical researchers on the awareness of animal experimental designs and reporting standards in China. PLoS One, 2017, 12(4): e0174530.
18. 孫西魁, 劉興龍, 馮立強. 人腺病毒感染動物模型的研究進展. 病毒學報, 2016, (6): 810-816.
19. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, et al. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol, 2010, 8(6): e1000412.
20. Hooijmans CR, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. 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.
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. 周為文, 葛龍, 徐俊峰, 等. 《中國循證醫學雜志》發表的干預類系統評價/Meta 分析報告質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(4): 482-488.
23. 許家科, 趙璐璐, 廖緒亮, 等. 循證構建動物實驗系統評價制作流程. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2017, 17(11): 1357-1364.

Previous Article
Quality assessment of Chinese clinical practice guidelines of gastric cancer
Next Article
The training needs of managing staffs in tertiary hospitals in China: a systematic review

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Methodological and reporting quality of systematic review/meta-analysis of animal studies

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content