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.	陈匡阳, 王亚楠, 赵雅琴, 等. 国内动物实验系统评价/Meta 分析研究的现状分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 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.	包呼格吉乐图, 刘霞, 曾凡星. 骨骼肌肥大动物模型形态学研究的系统量化分析. 成都体育学院学报, 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.	孙西魁, 刘兴龙, 冯立强. 人腺病毒感染动物模型的研究进展. 病毒学报, 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.	牛军强, 王亚楠, 朱芊各, 等. 动物实验方法学和报告质量评估工具的横断面研究. 中国循证医学杂志, 2015, 15(2): 223-229.
22.	周为文, 葛龙, 徐俊峰, 等. 《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta 分析报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(4): 482-488.
23.	许家科, 赵璐璐, 廖绪亮, 等. 循证构建动物实验系统评价制作流程. 中国循证医学杂志, 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. 陈匡阳, 王亚楠, 赵雅琴, 等. 国内动物实验系统评价/Meta 分析研究的现状分析. 中国循证医学杂志, 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. 包呼格吉乐图, 刘霞, 曾凡星. 骨骼肌肥大动物模型形态学研究的系统量化分析. 成都体育学院学报, 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. 孙西魁, 刘兴龙, 冯立强. 人腺病毒感染动物模型的研究进展. 病毒学报, 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. 牛军强, 王亚楠, 朱芊各, 等. 动物实验方法学和报告质量评估工具的横断面研究. 中国循证医学杂志, 2015, 15(2): 223-229.
22. 周为文, 葛龙, 徐俊峰, 等. 《中国循证医学杂志》发表的干预类系统评价/Meta 分析报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(4): 482-488.
23. 许家科, 赵璐璐, 廖绪亮, 等. 循证构建动物实验系统评价制作流程. 中国循证医学杂志, 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