ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of ibuprofen for premature infants with patent ductus arteriosus. MethodsDatabases including PubMed, Ovid-EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2014), CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs about ibuprofen for premature infants with patent ductus arteriosus from inception to December 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 37 RCTs, involving 2 370 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the placebo/blank group, ibuprofen could increase the closure rate of PDA (LBWI:RR=1.93, 95%CI 1.25 to 2.99，P=0.003; VLBW:RR=1.23, 95%CI 1.02 to 1.48, P=0.03; ELBWI:RR=2.86, 95%CI 1.51 to 5.41, P=0.001) and decrease the incidence of sepsis (VLBW:RR=0.21, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.64，P=0.006); Compared with the indometacin groups, ibuprofen could decrease the incidence of the increase of serum creatinine (LBWI:RR=0.11, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.37, P=0.000 2), NEC (LBWI, RR=0.52, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.95, P=0.03) and oliguria (LBWI: RR=0.30, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.56, P=0.000 2; VLBW:RR=1.40, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.92, P=0.03); Compared with the intravenous ibuprofen, Oral ibuprofen could increase the closure rate of PDA (VLBW: RR=1.35, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.62, P=0.002; ELBWI, RR=1.42, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.87, P=0.01). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that there is not indeterminate between ibuprofen and paracetamol groups. Compared with other general drugs, ibuprofen has an advantage over curing PDA and obviously reduces side effects. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
At present, there are many items/checklists used to assess the methodological quality of animal studies. Yet, no tool has been specifically designed for assessing internal validity of animal studies. This articles introduce and interprets SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies in detail for Chinese scholars to accurately assess the methodological quality of animal studies when they develop systematic reviews on animal studies, so as to provide references for scientific design and implementation of animal studies.
ObjectiveTo provide references for scientific selection of different tools/guidelines by comprehensively collecting international and national tools/guidelines for assessing reporting quality and methodological quality of animal experiments, comparing them in development foundation, application scope, and aims. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched up to July 2014, to collect tools/guidelines for reporting quality and methodological quality of primary animal experiments. We extracted data from included guidelines/tools, including the number of items, development foundation, disease models, application scope, and assessment focus. Then descriptive analysis was conducted. ResultsA total of 32 studies were finally included, of which, 6 were for reporting quality and 26 for methodological quality. The item number of the included tools/guidelines ranged from 2 to 54. Seven tools/guidelines applied score system to assess methodological quality. Fifteen tools/guidelines were designed for specific disease models. Nineteen tools/guidelines were suitable for assessing preclinical drug studies, and 4 were designed to assess environmental toxicology research. ConclusionAlthough many tools for assessing methodological quality of animal experiments have been published so far, SYRCLE's risk of bias tool is the only one that is used to assess internal validity of animal experiments at present. Besides, although the ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC are not official mandatory reporting criteria at present, they are acknowledged by many researchers as efficient reference checklists and writing guidelines for writing and publishing animal experiments. We recommend the application of SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC, in order to efficiently improve research design, implementation, reporting, differentiation, and evaluation of animal experiments, promote the development of animal experiments, and to promote full application and translation of scientific achievements.