The Evaluation of methodological quality of animal studies in high impact journals from 2014 to 2016_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHAO Lulu ^1,2,3 ^# , WANG Huan ^1,2,3 ^# , WU Kainan ^1,2,3 , XIE Ye ^1,2,3 , DU Junhong ^1,2,3 , LI Yanyou ^1,2,4 , ZHU Min ^1,2,3 , LI Jing ^1,2,3 , ZHAO Mengna ^1,2,3 , WEI Chenru ^1,2,4 , HOU Haozhong ^1,2,4 ,  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. The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

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

Keywords：

Animal experiments; SYRCLE; Methodological quality; Cross-sectional study

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201709093

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of animal experiments published in high impact journals, in order to provide references for improving the quality of animal experiments.MethodsCSCD and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect intervening primordial animal experiments from 2014 to August, 2016. Four reviewers independently screened literatures, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies by using SYRCLE tool.ResultsA total of 1 999 animal experiments were included. The cited frequency of more than 90% studies were ≤5 times, and of which 52.53% studies were zero. The results of SYRCLE evaluation showed that 54.55% of sub items rated as "low risk" were less than 30%. And 84.62% of them were less than 10%.ConclusionThere are defeet in methodological quality of animal experiments either domestic or abroad. The problems of domestic researches in implementation bias, measurement bias and loss of access bias are particularly obvious. The coincidence rates of "low risk" are much lower than those of abroad studies. Therefore, we suggest that it is necessary to take specific measures to popularize SYRCLE tool to effectively guide the development of animal experiments and improve the design and implementation of animal experiments.

Citation： ZHAO Lulu, WANG Huan, WU Kainan, XIE Ye, DU Junhong, LI Yanyou, ZHU Min, LI Jing, ZHAO Mengna, WEI Chenru, HOU Haozhong, MA Bin. The Evaluation of methodological quality of animal studies in high impact journals from 2014 to 2016. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2018, 18(4): 373-378. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201709093 Copy

1.	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.
2.	Sandercock P, Roberts I. Systematic reviews of animal experiments. Lancet, 2002, 360(9333): 586.
3.	贺争鸣, 邢瑞昌, 方喜业, 等. 论实验动物福利、动物实验与动物实验替代方法. 实验动物科学与管理, 2005, 22(1): 61-64.
4.	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.
5.	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.
6.	双梅, 赵晨, 张莉, 等. 运用 SYRCLE 工具评价中文期刊发表卒中/中风动物实验的方法学质量. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(5): 592-597.
7.	陈匡阳, 马彬, 王亚楠, 等. SYRCLE 动物实验偏倚风险评估工具简介. 中国循证医学杂志, 2014, 14(10): 1281-1285.
8.	Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Avialble at: www.handbook.cochrane.org.
9.	Johnston NA, Nevalainen T. Impact of biotic and abiotic environmenton animal experiments. Edited by Hau JS. In handbook of laboratory animal science (Book 1). The 3rd edition. Florida: CRC Press, 2010: 343-369.
10.	Donnelly H, Saibaba P. Light intensity and the oestrous cycle in albino and normally pigmented mice. Lab Anim, 1993, 27(4): 385-390.
11.	Vanderschuren LJ, Niesink RJ, Spruijt BM, et al. Influence of environmental factors on social play behavior of juvenile rats. Physiol Behav, 1995, 58(1): 119-123.
12.	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.
13.	Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, et al. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA, 1994, 272(2): 125-128.
14.	Bruguerolle B. Effect of the time of administration of a drug on its pharmacokinetics. Therapie, 1983, 38(3): 223-235.
15.	Bruguerolle B, Valli M, Bouyard L, et al. Effect of the hour of administration on the pharmacokinetics of lidocaine in the rat. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet, 1983, 8(3): 233-238.
16.	Marrino P, Gavish D, Shafrir E, et al. Diurnal variations of plasma lipids, tissue and plasma lipoprotein lipase, and VLDL secretion rates in the rat. A model for studies of VLDL metabolism. Biochim Biophys Acta, 1987, 920(3): 277-284.
17.	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.
18.	Surkont G, Wlaźlak 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.
19.	Zhou XH, Li SM. ITT analysis of randomized encouragement design studies with missing data. Stat Med, 2006, 25(16): 2737-2761.
20.	Godlee F. An international standard for disclosure of clinical trial information. BMJ, 2006, 332(7550): 1107-1108.
21.	Kimball AB, Weinstock MA, Massachusetts B, et al. Mandatory registration of clinical trials: a major step forward for evidence-based medicine. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2005, 52(5): 890-892.
22.	Krleza-Jerić K. Clinical trial registration: the differing views of industry, the WHO, and the Ottawa Group. PLoS Med, 2005, 2(11): e378.

1. 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.
2. Sandercock P, Roberts I. Systematic reviews of animal experiments. Lancet, 2002, 360(9333): 586.
3. 贺争鸣, 邢瑞昌, 方喜业, 等. 论实验动物福利、动物实验与动物实验替代方法. 实验动物科学与管理, 2005, 22(1): 61-64.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 双梅, 赵晨, 张莉, 等. 运用 SYRCLE 工具评价中文期刊发表卒中/中风动物实验的方法学质量. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(5): 592-597.
7. 陈匡阳, 马彬, 王亚楠, 等. SYRCLE 动物实验偏倚风险评估工具简介. 中国循证医学杂志, 2014, 14(10): 1281-1285.
8. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Avialble at: www.handbook.cochrane.org.
9. Johnston NA, Nevalainen T. Impact of biotic and abiotic environmenton animal experiments. Edited by Hau JS. In handbook of laboratory animal science (Book 1). The 3rd edition. Florida: CRC Press, 2010: 343-369.
10. Donnelly H, Saibaba P. Light intensity and the oestrous cycle in albino and normally pigmented mice. Lab Anim, 1993, 27(4): 385-390.
11. Vanderschuren LJ, Niesink RJ, Spruijt BM, et al. Influence of environmental factors on social play behavior of juvenile rats. Physiol Behav, 1995, 58(1): 119-123.
12. 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.
13. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, et al. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA, 1994, 272(2): 125-128.
14. Bruguerolle B. Effect of the time of administration of a drug on its pharmacokinetics. Therapie, 1983, 38(3): 223-235.
15. Bruguerolle B, Valli M, Bouyard L, et al. Effect of the hour of administration on the pharmacokinetics of lidocaine in the rat. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet, 1983, 8(3): 233-238.
16. Marrino P, Gavish D, Shafrir E, et al. Diurnal variations of plasma lipids, tissue and plasma lipoprotein lipase, and VLDL secretion rates in the rat. A model for studies of VLDL metabolism. Biochim Biophys Acta, 1987, 920(3): 277-284.
17. 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.
18. Surkont G, Wlaźlak 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.
19. Zhou XH, Li SM. ITT analysis of randomized encouragement design studies with missing data. Stat Med, 2006, 25(16): 2737-2761.
20. Godlee F. An international standard for disclosure of clinical trial information. BMJ, 2006, 332(7550): 1107-1108.
21. Kimball AB, Weinstock MA, Massachusetts B, et al. Mandatory registration of clinical trials: a major step forward for evidence-based medicine. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2005, 52(5): 890-892.
22. Krleza-Jerić K. Clinical trial registration: the differing views of industry, the WHO, and the Ottawa Group. PLoS Med, 2005, 2(11): e378.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

The Evaluation of methodological quality of animal studies in high impact journals from 2014 to 2016

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content