Systematic review of guidelines for internal validity in the design, conduct and analysis of preclinical biomedical experiments involving laboratory animals.

Q1 Medicine BMJ Open Science Pub Date : 2020-04-15 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjos-2019-100046
Jan Vollert, Esther Schenker, Malcolm Macleod, Anton Bespalov, Hanno Wuerbel, Martin Michel, Ulrich Dirnagl, Heidrun Potschka, Ann-Marie Waldron, Kimberley Wever, Thomas Steckler, Tom van de Casteele, Bruce Altevogt, Annesha Sil, Andrew S C Rice
{"title":"Systematic review of guidelines for internal validity in the design, conduct and analysis of preclinical biomedical experiments involving laboratory animals.","authors":"Jan Vollert, Esther Schenker, Malcolm Macleod, Anton Bespalov, Hanno Wuerbel, Martin Michel, Ulrich Dirnagl, Heidrun Potschka, Ann-Marie Waldron, Kimberley Wever, Thomas Steckler, Tom van de Casteele, Bruce Altevogt, Annesha Sil, Andrew S C Rice","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2019-100046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Over the last two decades, awareness of the negative repercussions of flaws in the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical research involving experimental animals has been growing. Several initiatives have set out to increase transparency and internal validity of preclinical studies, mostly publishing expert consensus and experience. While many of the points raised in these various guidelines are identical or similar, they differ in detail and rigour. Most of them focus on reporting, only few of them cover the planning and conduct of studies. The aim of this systematic review is to identify existing experimental design, conduct, analysis and reporting guidelines relating to preclinical animal research. A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science retrieved 13 863 unique results. After screening these on title and abstract, 613 papers entered the full-text assessment stage, from which 60 papers were retained. From these, we extracted unique 58 recommendations on the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical animal studies. Sample size calculations, adequate statistical methods, concealed and randomised allocation of animals to treatment, blinded outcome assessment and recording of animal flow through the experiment were recommended in more than half of the publications. While we consider these recommendations to be valuable, there is a striking lack of experimental evidence on their importance and relative effect on experiments and effect sizes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":" ","pages":"e100046"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647591/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2019-100046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over the last two decades, awareness of the negative repercussions of flaws in the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical research involving experimental animals has been growing. Several initiatives have set out to increase transparency and internal validity of preclinical studies, mostly publishing expert consensus and experience. While many of the points raised in these various guidelines are identical or similar, they differ in detail and rigour. Most of them focus on reporting, only few of them cover the planning and conduct of studies. The aim of this systematic review is to identify existing experimental design, conduct, analysis and reporting guidelines relating to preclinical animal research. A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science retrieved 13 863 unique results. After screening these on title and abstract, 613 papers entered the full-text assessment stage, from which 60 papers were retained. From these, we extracted unique 58 recommendations on the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical animal studies. Sample size calculations, adequate statistical methods, concealed and randomised allocation of animals to treatment, blinded outcome assessment and recording of animal flow through the experiment were recommended in more than half of the publications. While we consider these recommendations to be valuable, there is a striking lack of experimental evidence on their importance and relative effect on experiments and effect sizes.

Abstract Image

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
对涉及实验动物的临床前生物医学实验的设计、实施和分析中的内部有效性指南进行系统回顾。
过去二十年来,人们越来越意识到,涉及实验动物的临床前研究在计划、实施和报告方面的缺陷会产生负面影响。为了提高临床前研究的透明度和内部有效性,有几项倡议已经开始实施,其中大部分是发布专家共识和经验。虽然这些指南中提出的许多观点相同或相似,但在细节和严谨性方面却各不相同。它们大多侧重于报告,只有少数涉及研究的规划和实施。本系统性综述旨在确定与临床前动物研究相关的现有实验设计、实施、分析和报告指南。在 PubMed、Embase 和 Web of Science 中进行的系统性搜索共检索到 13 863 条结果。根据标题和摘要进行筛选后,613 篇论文进入全文评估阶段,其中 60 篇论文被保留下来。我们从中提取了关于临床前动物研究的计划、实施和报告的 58 条建议。半数以上的论文建议进行样本量计算、采用适当的统计方法、对动物进行隐蔽和随机的治疗分配、对结果进行盲法评估以及记录动物在实验中的流动情况。虽然我们认为这些建议很有价值,但在其重要性以及对实验和效应大小的相对影响方面却明显缺乏实验证据。
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
BMJ Open Science
BMJ Open Science Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
31 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correction: Preclinical safety study of nacre powder in an intraosseous sheep model. Protocol for a systematic review of the validity of animal models of polydipsia with a basis in schizophrenia aetiology. Preclinical safety study of nacre powder in an intraosseous sheep model. Protocol for a systematic review of good surgical practice guidelines for experimental rodent surgery. Genome-wide DNA methylation in an animal model and human studies of schizophrenia: a protocol for a meta-analysis.
×
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