Consistency in Reporting of Loss of Righting Reflex for Assessment of General Anesthesia in Rats and Mice: A Systematic Review.

Michael Z Teng, Dexter Merenick, Anisha Jessel, Heather Ganshorn, Daniel S J Pang
{"title":"Consistency in Reporting of Loss of Righting Reflex for Assessment of General Anesthesia in Rats and Mice: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Michael Z Teng, Dexter Merenick, Anisha Jessel, Heather Ganshorn, Daniel S J Pang","doi":"10.30802/AALAS-CM-23-000063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>General anesthesia induces a reversible loss of consciousness (LOC), a state that is characterized by the inability to feel pain. Identifying LOC in animals poses unique challenges, because the method most commonly used in humans, responding to questions, cannot be used in animals. For over a century, loss of righting reflex (LORR) has been used to assess LOC in animals. This is the only animal method that correlates directly with LOC in humans and has become the standard proxy measure used in research. However, the reporting of how LORR is assessed varies extensively. This systematic literature review examined the consistency and completeness of LORR methods used in rats and mice. The terms 'righting reflex,' 'anesthesia,' 'conscious,' 'rats,' 'mice,' and their derivatives were used to search 5 electronic databases. The abstracts of the 985 articles identified were screened for indications that the study assessed LORR in mice or rats. Full texts of selected articles were reviewed for LORR methodological completeness, with reported methods categorized by 1) animal placement method, 2) behavioral presence of righting reflex, 3) duration of LORR testing, 4) behavioral LORR, and 5) animal position for testing LORR. Only 22 papers reported on all 5 methodological categories. Of the 22 papers, 21 used unique LORR methodologies, with descriptions of LORR methods differing in at least one category as compared with all other studies. This variability indicates that even papers that included all 5 categories still had substantial differences in their methodological descriptions. These findings reveal substantial inconsistencies in LORR methodology and reporting in the biomedical literature likely compromising study replicability and data interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93950,"journal":{"name":"Comparative medicine","volume":"74 1","pages":"12-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10938561/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-CM-23-000063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

General anesthesia induces a reversible loss of consciousness (LOC), a state that is characterized by the inability to feel pain. Identifying LOC in animals poses unique challenges, because the method most commonly used in humans, responding to questions, cannot be used in animals. For over a century, loss of righting reflex (LORR) has been used to assess LOC in animals. This is the only animal method that correlates directly with LOC in humans and has become the standard proxy measure used in research. However, the reporting of how LORR is assessed varies extensively. This systematic literature review examined the consistency and completeness of LORR methods used in rats and mice. The terms 'righting reflex,' 'anesthesia,' 'conscious,' 'rats,' 'mice,' and their derivatives were used to search 5 electronic databases. The abstracts of the 985 articles identified were screened for indications that the study assessed LORR in mice or rats. Full texts of selected articles were reviewed for LORR methodological completeness, with reported methods categorized by 1) animal placement method, 2) behavioral presence of righting reflex, 3) duration of LORR testing, 4) behavioral LORR, and 5) animal position for testing LORR. Only 22 papers reported on all 5 methodological categories. Of the 22 papers, 21 used unique LORR methodologies, with descriptions of LORR methods differing in at least one category as compared with all other studies. This variability indicates that even papers that included all 5 categories still had substantial differences in their methodological descriptions. These findings reveal substantial inconsistencies in LORR methodology and reporting in the biomedical literature likely compromising study replicability and data interpretation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于评估大鼠和小鼠全身麻醉的右反射丧失报告的一致性:系统性综述。
全身麻醉会诱发可逆的意识丧失(LOC),这种状态的特点是感觉不到疼痛。识别动物的 LOC 具有独特的挑战性,因为最常用于人类的方法(回答问题)无法用于动物。一个多世纪以来,丧失右反射(LORR)一直被用于评估动物的 LOC。这是唯一一种与人类 LOC 直接相关的动物方法,并已成为研究中使用的标准替代测量方法。然而,关于如何评估 LORR 的报告却大相径庭。本系统性文献综述考察了在大鼠和小鼠中使用的 LORR 方法的一致性和完整性。使用 "右反射"、"麻醉"、"意识"、"大鼠"、"小鼠 "及其衍生词搜索了 5 个电子数据库。筛选了 985 篇文章的摘要,以确定研究是否评估了小鼠或大鼠的右反射。对所选文章的全文进行了 LORR 方法完整性审查,报告的方法按 1) 动物放置方法、2) 右反射的行为存在、3) LORR 测试持续时间、4) 行为 LORR 和 5) 测试 LORR 的动物位置进行分类。只有 22 篇论文报告了所有 5 个方法类别。在这 22 篇论文中,有 21 篇使用了独特的 LORR 方法,其中至少有一类 LORR 方法的描述与所有其他研究不同。这种差异表明,即使是包含了所有 5 个类别的论文,在方法描述上仍然存在很大差异。这些发现揭示了生物医学文献中 LORR 方法和报告的严重不一致,可能会影响研究的可复制性和数据解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
AALAS Journal Updates for Authors. Chlamydia muridarum Causes Persistent Subclinical Infection and Elicits Innate and Adaptive Immune Responses in C57BL/6J, BALB/cJ, and J:ARC(S) Mice Following Exposure to Shedding Mice. The Final Scene. Investigating the Effect of Enterally Administered Capromorelin on Body Weight in Mice (Mus musculus). Comparison of Terminal Elbow Extension between Humans and Baboons (Papio anubis).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1