Search

Current antiseizure therapy is ineffective in approximately one third of people with epilepsy and is often associated with substantial side effects. In addition, most current therapeutic paradigms offer treatment, but not cure, and no therapies are able to modify the underlying disease, that is, can prevent or halt the process of epileptogenesis or alleviate the cognitive and psychiatric comorbidities. Preclinical research in the field of epilepsy has been extensive, but unfortunately, not all the animal models being used have been validated for their predictive value. The overall goal of TASK2 of the AES/ ILAE Translational Task Force is to organize and coordinate systematic reviews on selected topics regarding animal research in epilepsy. Herein we describe our strategy. In the first part of the paper we provide an overview of the usefulness of systematic reviews and meta-analysis for preclinical research and explain the essentials for their conduct. Then we describe in detail the protocol for a first systematic review, which will focus on the identification and characterization of outcome measures reported in animal models of epilepsy. The specific goals of this study are to define systematically the phenotypic characteristics of the most commonly used animal models, and to effectively compare these with the manifestations of human epilepsy. This will provide epilepsy researchers with detailed information on the strengths and weaknesses of epilepsy models, facilitating their refinement and future research. Ultimately, this could lead to a refined use of relevant models for understanding the mechanism(s) of the epilepsies and developing novel therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Clear reporting of research is crucial to the scientific process. Poorly designed and reported studies are damaging not only to the efforts of individual researchers, but also to science as a whole. Standardised reporting methods, such as those already established for reporting randomised clinical trials, have led to improved study design and facilitated the processes of clinical systematic review and meta-analysis. Such standards were lacking in the pre-clinical field until the development of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. These were prompted following a survey which highlighted a widespread lack of robust and consistent reporting of pre-clinical in vivo research, with reports frequently omitting basic information required for study replication and quality assessment. The resulting twenty item checklist in ARRIVE covers all aspects of experimental design with particular emphasis on bias reduction and methodological transparency. Influential publishers and research funders have already adopted ARRIVE. Further dissemination and acknowledgement of the importance of these guidelines is vital to their widespread implementation. Conclusions and implications: Wide implementation of the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting of in vivo preclinical research, especially pain research, are essential for a much needed increased transparency and quality in publishing such research. ARRIVE will also positively influence improvements in experimental design and quality, assist the conduct of accurate replication studies of important new findings and facilitate meta-analyses of preclinical research. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background. Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is used to counteract learned nonuse observed following stroke in humans and has been shown to improve function. Variations of CIMT used in animal models of stroke have the potential to inform and improve our understanding of this intervention. Objective. To conduct a systematic review of studies investigating constraint in experimental stroke. The authors aimed to assess the quality and establish the efficacy of constraint on neurobehavior, cognitive function, infarct size, and stress and mortality and to determine the optimal dose or time to administration. Methods. Systematic review with meta-analysis was used. Data were analyzed using DerSimonian and Laird weighted-mean-difference random effects meta-analysis. Results. The quality scores of the 8 articles (15 studies) included were moderate (median 5/10; interquartile range, 4.8-6.0). There was a trend for animals with constraint to have worse neurobehavioral scores (−10% worse; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −20 to 0; P = .06). Infarct volumes were not significantly different between groups (−3% larger with constraint; 95% CI = −15 to 9; P = .63). Cognitive function was significantly better after constraint, although this estimate was based on only 28 animals from 2 studies. Insufficient data prevented analysis of the effect of constraint on stress and mortality. Conclusions. This meta-analysis showed no benefit of constraint on neurobehavioral scores, which is at odds with some human studies. Animal models may help us efficiently explore the biological basis of rehabilitation interventions; however, review of the data in this study raise uncertainty about its effectiveness in humans. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

There is growing concern about lack of scientific rigor and transparent reporting across many preclinical fields of biological research. Poor experimental design and lack of transparent reporting can result in conscious or unconscious experimental bias, producing results that are not replicable. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public–private partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sponsored a consensus meeting of the Preclinical Pain Research Consortium for Investigating Safety and Efficacy (PPRECISE) Working Group. International participants from universities, funding agencies, government agencies, industry, and a patient advocacy organization attended. Reduction of publication bias, increasing the ability of others to faithfully repeat experimental methods, and increased transparency of data reporting were specifically discussed. Parameters deemed essential to increase confidence in the published literature were clear, specific reporting of an a priori hypothesis and definition of primary outcome measure. Power calculations and whether measurement of minimal meaningful effect size to determine these should be a core component of the preclinical research effort provoked considerable discussion, with many but not all agreeing. Greater transparency of reporting should be driven by scientists, journal editors, reviewers, and grant funders. The conduct of high-quality science that is fully reported should not preclude novelty and innovation in preclinical pain research, and indeed, any efforts that curtail such innovation would be misguided. We believe that to achieve the goal of finding effective new treatments for patients with pain, the pain field needs to deal with these challenging issues.

A round table discussion was held during the LAVA-ESLAV-ECLAM conference on Reproducibility of Animal Studies on the 25th of September 2017 in Edinburgh. The aim of the round table was to discuss how to enhance the rate at which the quality of reporting animal research can be improved. This signed statement acknowledges the efforts that participant organizations have made towards improving the reporting of animal studies and confirms an ongoing commitment to drive further improvements, calling upon both academics and laboratory animal veterinarians to help make this cultural change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]