Search

In an effort to better utilize published evidence obtained from animal experiments, systematic reviews of preclinical studies are increasingly more common—along with the methods and tools to appraise them (e.g., SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation [SYRCLE’s] risk of bias tool). We performed a cross-sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews (2015–2018) and examined a range of epidemiological characteristics and used a 46-item checklist to assess reporting details. We identified 442 reviews published across 43 countries in 23 different disease domains that used 26 animal species. Reporting of key details to ensure transparency and reproducibility was inconsistent across reviews and within article sections. Items were most completely reported in the title, introduction, and results sections of the reviews, while least reported in the methods and discussion sections. Less than half of reviews reported that a risk of bias assessment for internal and external validity was undertaken, and none reported methods for evaluating construct validity. Our results demonstrate that a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent. Our study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews., A cross sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews reveals deficiencies in reporting and provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of specific guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews.

Objectives In many jurisdictions, ethical concerns require surrogate humane endpoints to replace death in small animal models of acute lung injury. Heterogenous selection and reporting of surrogate endpoints render interpretation and generalizability of findings between studies difficult. We aimed to establish expert-guided consensus among preclinical scientists and laboratory animal veterinarians on selection and reporting of surrogate endpoints, monitoring of these models, and the use of analgesia. Design A three-round consensus process, using modified Delphi methodology, with researchers who use small animal models of acute lung injury and laboratory animal veterinarians who provide care for these animals. Statements on the selection and reporting of surrogate endpoints, monitoring, and analgesia were generated through a systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase. Participants were asked to suggest any additional potential statements for evaluation. Setting A web-based survey of participants representing the two stakeholder groups (researchers, laboratory animal veterinarians). Statements were rated on level of evidence and strength of support by participants. A final face-to-face meeting was then held to discuss results. Subjects None. Interventions None. Measurements and main results Forty-two statements were evaluated, and 29 were rated as important, with varying strength of evidence. The majority of evidence was based on rodent models of acute lung injury. Endpoints with strong support and evidence included temperature changes and body weight loss. Behavioral signs and respiratory distress also received support but were associated with lower levels of evidence. Participants strongly agreed that analgesia affects outcomes in these models and that none may be necessary following nonsurgical induction of acute lung injury. Finally, participants strongly supported transparent reporting of surrogate endpoints. A prototype composite score was also developed based on participant feedback. Conclusions We provide a preliminary framework that researchers and animal welfare committees may adapt for their needs. We have identified knowledge gaps that future research should address.

Poor reporting quality may contribute to irreproducibility of results and failed 'bench-to-bedside' translation. Consequently, guidelines have been developed to improve the complete and transparent reporting of in vivo preclinical studies. To examine the impact of such guidelines on core methodological and analytical reporting items in the preclinical anesthesiology literature, we sampled a cohort of studies. Preclinical in vivo studies published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anaesthesia, and the British Journal of Anaesthesia (2008-2009, 2014-2016) were identified. Data was extracted independently and in duplicate. Reporting completeness was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research. Risk ratios were used for comparative analyses. Of 7615 screened articles, 604 met our inclusion criteria and included experiments reporting on 52 490 animals. The most common topic of investigation was pain and analgesia (30%), rodents were most frequently used (77%), and studies were most commonly conducted in the United States (36%). Use of preclinical reporting guidelines was listed in 10% of applicable articles. A minority of studies fully reported on replicates (0.3%), randomization (10%), blinding (12%), sample-size estimation (3%), and inclusion/exclusion criteria (5%). Statistics were well reported (81%). Comparative analysis demonstrated few differences in reporting rigor between journals, including those that endorsed reporting guidelines. Principal items of study design were infrequently reported, with few differences between journals. Methods to improve implementation and adherence to community-based reporting guidelines may be necessary to increase transparent and consistent reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.