The reporting quality of intervention animal studies published in Chinese journals: a quantitative analysis_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

WANG Huan ^1,2,3 ^# , LIU Yali ⁴ ^# , ZHU Min ^1,2,3 , WU Kainan ^1,2,3 , ZHAO Mengna ^1,2,3 , HOU Haozhong ^1,2,5 , WEI Chenru ^1,2,5 , LI Yanyou ^1,2,5 , LIAO Xuliang ^1,2,5 , LI Jing ^1,2,3 , JIA Yu ^1,2,6 , BIAN Tianyue ^1,2,3 , ZHAO Lulu ^1,2,3 ,  MA Bin ^1,2

1. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
2. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
3. The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
4. Department of Neurosurgery of Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
5. The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
6. The Dentistry College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;

Corresponding?author：

MA Bin, Email: mab@lzu.edu.cn

Keywords：

Animal experiments; ARRIVE; Reporting quality

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201808056

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objectives Using the ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research Reporting: In Vivo Experiments Guidelines) to carry out a retrospective study of the reporting quality of animal studies published in Chinese journals.Methods We searched databases including CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM to July, 2018. Four reviewers independently screened literatures and extracted data. The ARRIVE guidelines were used to assess reporting quality and the comparative analysis based on different published time.Results A total of 4 342 studies were included. About the cited frequency, 73.03% studies were ≤5, and merely 29.04% studies were published in journals of CSCD. The assessment results showed that the number of reported items with "low risk" in the ARRIVE guidelines, which have 20 items, that meaning 39 sub items, more than half of sub items (51.28%, 20/39) rated as "low risk" had a compliance rate of less than 50%. Among them, 65.00% (13/20) of sub items had a lower rate of compliance with "low risk" than 10%.Conclusion The reporting quality of domestic animal studies is generally low. The coincidence rate of domestic animal studies has been improved to some extent in most of items after the ARRIVE guidelines published, however, some items of methodology, results and conclusions had problems with insufficient reporting. Therefore, we suggest that it is necessary to popularize the ARRIVE guidelines, advocate more researchers following the ARRIVE guidelines and promote endorsement of the ARRIVE Guideline by Chinese Journals to improve the design, implementation and reporting of animal experiments, and ultimately enhance the quality of animal studies.

Citation： WANG Huan, LIU Yali, ZHU Min, WU Kainan, ZHAO Mengna, HOU Haozhong, WEI Chenru, LI Yanyou, LIAO Xuliang, LI Jing, JIA Yu, BIAN Tianyue, ZHAO Lulu, MA Bin. The reporting quality of intervention animal studies published in Chinese journals: a quantitative analysis. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2019, 19(1): 89-96. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201808056 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, 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): 586-586.
4.	Festing MF. The scope for improving the design of laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim, 1992, 26(4): 256-268.
5.	Festing MF, Nevalainen T. The design and statistical analysis of animal experiments: introduction to this issue. Ilar J, 2014, 55(3): 379-382.
6.	Macleod MR, Ebrahim S, Roberts I. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: systematic review and meta-analysis are important contributions. BMJ, 2005, 331(7508): 110.
7.	Rómulo CE, Ricardo PM. OPL105 Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of tPA in experimental stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2005, 25(6): 713-21.
8.	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.
9.	Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. Am J Ophthalmol, 1996, 122(8): 637-9.
10.	Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Chthill IC, et al. Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol, 2010, 8(6): 1000412.
11.	趙亞娜, 馮小歡, 馮芹, 等. 骨腫瘤動物實驗報告現狀研究. 濟寧醫學院學報, 2015, (1): 57-61.
12.	于娟, 范沛, 陳麗, 等. 國外動物福利倫理發展概況及其借鑒意義. 中南地區實驗動物科技交流會. 2009.
13.	陳潔, 喻婷, 劉武, 等. 對我國科學研究中實驗動物倫理問題的思考. 農業科技管理, 2014, 33(6): 22-24.
14.	Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol, 2015, 13(6): e1002165.
15.	Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 2012, 483(7391): 531-533.
16.	Begley CG, Ioannidis JP. Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res, 2015, 116(1): 116.
17.	Hackam DG, Redelmeier DA. Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. JAMA, 2006, 296(14): 1731-1732.
18.	Johnston NA, Nevalainen T. Impact of biotic and abiotic environmenton animal experiments. In Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science (Book 1). 3rd edition. Edited by Hau JS. Raton B. Florida: CRC Press, 2010: 343-369.
19.	Donnelly H, Saibaba P. Light intensity and the oestrous cycle in albino and normally pigmented mice. Lab Anim, 1993, 27(4): 385-390.
20.	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.
21.	Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature, 2012, 490(7419): 187-191.
22.	冶冬陽, 孫靜, 李日飛, 等. 實驗動物福利實施研究進展. 實驗動物與比較醫學, 2017, 37(2): 166-170.
23.	Johnson PD, Besselsen DG. Practical aspects of experimental design in animal research. Ilar J, 2002, 43(4): 202-206.
24.	Shaw R, Festing MF, Peers I, et al. Use of factorial designs to optimize animal experiments and reduce animal use. Ilar J, 2002, 43(4): 223-232.

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, 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): 586-586.
4. Festing MF. The scope for improving the design of laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim, 1992, 26(4): 256-268.
5. Festing MF, Nevalainen T. The design and statistical analysis of animal experiments: introduction to this issue. Ilar J, 2014, 55(3): 379-382.
6. Macleod MR, Ebrahim S, Roberts I. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: systematic review and meta-analysis are important contributions. BMJ, 2005, 331(7508): 110.
7. Rómulo CE, Ricardo PM. OPL105 Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of tPA in experimental stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2005, 25(6): 713-21.
8. 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.
9. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. Am J Ophthalmol, 1996, 122(8): 637-9.
10. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Chthill IC, et al. Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol, 2010, 8(6): 1000412.
11. 趙亞娜, 馮小歡, 馮芹, 等. 骨腫瘤動物實驗報告現狀研究. 濟寧醫學院學報, 2015, (1): 57-61.
12. 于娟, 范沛, 陳麗, 等. 國外動物福利倫理發展概況及其借鑒意義. 中南地區實驗動物科技交流會. 2009.
13. 陳潔, 喻婷, 劉武, 等. 對我國科學研究中實驗動物倫理問題的思考. 農業科技管理, 2014, 33(6): 22-24.
14. Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol, 2015, 13(6): e1002165.
15. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 2012, 483(7391): 531-533.
16. Begley CG, Ioannidis JP. Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res, 2015, 116(1): 116.
17. Hackam DG, Redelmeier DA. Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. JAMA, 2006, 296(14): 1731-1732.
18. Johnston NA, Nevalainen T. Impact of biotic and abiotic environmenton animal experiments. In Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science (Book 1). 3rd edition. Edited by Hau JS. Raton B. Florida: CRC Press, 2010: 343-369.
19. Donnelly H, Saibaba P. Light intensity and the oestrous cycle in albino and normally pigmented mice. Lab Anim, 1993, 27(4): 385-390.
20. 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.
21. Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature, 2012, 490(7419): 187-191.
22. 冶冬陽, 孫靜, 李日飛, 等. 實驗動物福利實施研究進展. 實驗動物與比較醫學, 2017, 37(2): 166-170.
23. Johnson PD, Besselsen DG. Practical aspects of experimental design in animal research. Ilar J, 2002, 43(4): 202-206.
24. Shaw R, Festing MF, Peers I, et al. Use of factorial designs to optimize animal experiments and reduce animal use. Ilar J, 2002, 43(4): 223-232.

Previous Article
Evaluation of reliability and validity on quality criteria for clinical nursing practice guidelines in China
Next Article
Interpretation of standards for reporting implementation studies (StaRI)

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

The reporting quality of intervention animal studies published in Chinese journals: a quantitative analysis

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content