ObjectiveTo provide a reference for developing search strategy of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of animal researches (ARs) in future, we investigated and analyzed the search strategy of SRs/MAs of ARs at home and abroad. MethodsOvid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMbase, Ovid-BIOSIS previews, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched from inception to January 2015, to collect SRs/MAs of ARs that related to medicine. No limitation in species. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted basic characteristics, databases and other sources searched, characteristics of reported search strategy of included studies. ResultA total of 181 SRs/MAs of ARs were finally included. Less than 30% SRs/MAs searched more than three databases, 65.7% reported supplementary retrieval. 86.2% (156/181) SRs/MAs reported search terms, but only 12 reported search strategy; the search terms of 33 studies included specific name of animal, 27 studies used "animal/experimental model/", 20 studies used "limit to animal". 71.3% SRs/MAs reported specific time limitation of searching, 44.2% reported whether limited language, 23.8% of them limited language, and more of these limited to English. ConclusionAt present, there are still some problems in SRs/MAs of ARs at home and abroad when choice database, search terms and search strategy, so we advise that:1) It's necessary to choice typical databases as many as possible according to search field; 2) Using specific animal's name and (or) "animal" as one of search terms, and using "limit to animal" according to characteristic of different databases; 3) The reporting of search strategy of SRs/MAs of ARs should include search sources, time limitation, language limitation, limitation of inclusion type, search terms and complete search strategy, besides, reporting knowledge of reviewers is also necessary; 4) To improve transparency and clarity of SRs/MAs of ARs, some related journals should introduce "reporting complete search strategy" in their instruction for authors.
ObjectiveTo assess the endorsement of the ARRIVE guideline and the Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) by Chinese journals in animal experiments field and its incorporation into their editorial processes. MethodsChinese journals indexed by SCI, MEDLINE, CSCD or CSTPCD were included. The latest'instruction for authors' (IFA) of each included journals was downloaded and any text mentioning the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC was extracted. Subsequently, a self-designed questionnaire was used to investigate the editor of each included journals. The investigation contents mainly included the basic information of the respondents, the awareness situation on the ARRIVE guideline, GSPC and their incorporation into editorial and peer review processes. Results240 journals in animal experiments field from China were examined. A total of 240 questionnaires were issued, of which, 198 questionnaires were effective (response rate 82.5%). The results showed that all IFAs didn't mention the ARRIVE guideline or GSPC and the awareness rate on the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC in editors of Chinese journals was only 13.1%. Only 10.1% of the editors reported that they required authors to comply with the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC. And editors reported that they incorporated the two guidelines into their peer review (7.1%) and editorial processes (8.1%). ConclusionAt present, all Chinese journals'IFAs didn't mention the ARRIVE guideline or GSPC. The majority of editors surveyed are not familiar with the content of the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC. And it needs to take purposeful measures to promote and popularize them in order to improve the quality of animal experiment reports.
ObjectiveTo survey the important characteristics, such as the number of time cited, methodological and reporting quality of the systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA) of animal studies published in Chinese journals. MethodsThe CNKI and WanFang Data databases were searched for SR/MA of animal studies published in Chinese journals from inception to March 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted basic characteristic and methodology characteristics of included studies. And then a descriptive analysis was conducted. ResultsA total of 18 studies published in 13 different journals were included. 77.8% studies were not been cited, 44.4% did not report the types of including studies. Besides, there were some certain weaknesses in the methodological quality, for example, over 60% studies did not assess the qualities and publication bias of the including studies, 22.2% SRs/MAs only searched Chinese databases, over 80% studies did not provide flow chart etc. ConclusionThe number of SRs/MAs of animal studies published in Chinese journals is small and the number of times cited is low, and the methodological and reporting quality is poor. So, focusing on improving the quality of SRs/MAs is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies.