国内期刊发表的干预类动物实验报告质量的文献计量分析
|
摘要
目的基于ARRIVE指南对国内已发表的动物实验的报告质量进行回顾分析。方法计算机检索CNKI、WanFang Data、VIP和CBM数据库,检索时限截至2018年7月。由4名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料,采用ARRIVE指南评价纳入动物实验的报告质量,并根据发表时间对指南各个条目的符合率进行对比分析。结果最终纳入4 342篇动物实验。其中73.03%(3 171/4 342)的研究的被引次数≤5次;仅29.04%的研究(1 261/4 342)发表在CSCD收录的期刊。ARRIVE指南评价结果显示:超过一半的亚条目(51.28%,20/39)在"低风险"的符合率不足50%,其中65.00%(13/20)的亚条目在"低风险"的符合率上低于10%。结论国内动物实验报告质量总体中等偏低。随着2010年ARRIVE指南的正式发布,国内动物实验报告在ARRIVE指南的大部分条目上的符合率虽得到一定程度的提高,但在方法学、结果及讨论部分内容涉及的一些具体条目存在报告不充分、不完整等问题。因此,我们建议有必要普及ARRIVE指南,倡导动物实验研究者们遵循ARRIVE指南进行实验报告并促进其在相关期刊中的应用,以促进动物实验的设计、实施和报告,最终提升其质量。
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 andthe 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 than50%. 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.
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 andthe 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 than50%. 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.
引文
1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,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 Romulo CE, Ricardo PM. OPL105 Systematic review and metaanalysis 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赵亚娜,冯小欢,冯芹,等.骨肿瘤动物实验报告现状研究.济宁医学院学报,2015,(1):57-61.
12于娟,范沛,陈丽,等.国外动物福利伦理发展概况及其借鉴意义.中南地区实验动物科技交流会.2009.
13陈洁,喻婷,刘武,等.对我国科学研究中实验动物伦理问题的思考.农业科技管理,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 inalbino 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冶冬阳,孙静,李日飞,等.实验动物福利实施研究进展.实验动物与比较医学,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.
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 Romulo CE, Ricardo PM. OPL105 Systematic review and metaanalysis 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赵亚娜,冯小欢,冯芹,等.骨肿瘤动物实验报告现状研究.济宁医学院学报,2015,(1):57-61.
12于娟,范沛,陈丽,等.国外动物福利伦理发展概况及其借鉴意义.中南地区实验动物科技交流会.2009.
13陈洁,喻婷,刘武,等.对我国科学研究中实验动物伦理问题的思考.农业科技管理,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 inalbino 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冶冬阳,孙静,李日飞,等.实验动物福利实施研究进展.实验动物与比较医学,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.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |