Jiaxian Li , Xuqi Bi , Chengzhi Hou , Yu Jin , Mengqiu Shang , Xiaoyu Wu , Lina Liang
{"title":"中药配方治疗青光眼动物实验的方法学质量评价:系统综述","authors":"Jiaxian Li , Xuqi Bi , Chengzhi Hou , Yu Jin , Mengqiu Shang , Xiaoyu Wu , Lina Liang","doi":"10.1016/j.eujim.2024.102399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>This review aimed to evaluate the methodology and reporting quality of preclinical studies on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) intervention for glaucoma, and explore areas for improvement.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Eight Chinese and English databases were searched for animal experiment articles on TCM formulas for glaucoma. The risk of bias was evaluated using the SYRCLE's tool, the reporting quality using the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines and the GSPC checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Seventy-two articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for full-text review. According to the SYRCLE's tool, 7 (70%) of the 10 items had a low-risk rate of less than 50%, high-risk items were focused on selectivity bias, implementation bias, and measurement bias. Results of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines showed that 20 (53%) of the 38 sub-items had a high-agreement rate of less than 50%. Using the GSPC checklist, it was determined that 10 (53%) of the 19 sub-items had high-agreement rates of less than 50%. Randomization, blinding, ethical statements, housing and husbandry, animal care and monitoring, and protocol registration were low-agreement rate aspects of study reporting.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The methodology and reporting quality of animal studies on TCM formulas for glaucoma is generally low. It is advised to further refer to the SYRCLE's tool and reporting guidelines, to enhance the design, performance, and reporting of animal experiments to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of results.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11932,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Integrative Medicine","volume":"71 ","pages":"Article 102399"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382024000684/pdfft?md5=590f7d812de03664a14a5a0669e3915f&pid=1-s2.0-S1876382024000684-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological quality evaluation of animal experiments on traditional Chinese medicine formulas for glaucoma: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Jiaxian Li , Xuqi Bi , Chengzhi Hou , Yu Jin , Mengqiu Shang , Xiaoyu Wu , Lina Liang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eujim.2024.102399\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>This review aimed to evaluate the methodology and reporting quality of preclinical studies on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) intervention for glaucoma, and explore areas for improvement.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Eight Chinese and English databases were searched for animal experiment articles on TCM formulas for glaucoma. The risk of bias was evaluated using the SYRCLE's tool, the reporting quality using the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines and the GSPC checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Seventy-two articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for full-text review. According to the SYRCLE's tool, 7 (70%) of the 10 items had a low-risk rate of less than 50%, high-risk items were focused on selectivity bias, implementation bias, and measurement bias. Results of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines showed that 20 (53%) of the 38 sub-items had a high-agreement rate of less than 50%. Using the GSPC checklist, it was determined that 10 (53%) of the 19 sub-items had high-agreement rates of less than 50%. Randomization, blinding, ethical statements, housing and husbandry, animal care and monitoring, and protocol registration were low-agreement rate aspects of study reporting.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The methodology and reporting quality of animal studies on TCM formulas for glaucoma is generally low. It is advised to further refer to the SYRCLE's tool and reporting guidelines, to enhance the design, performance, and reporting of animal experiments to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of results.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Integrative Medicine\",\"volume\":\"71 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102399\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382024000684/pdfft?md5=590f7d812de03664a14a5a0669e3915f&pid=1-s2.0-S1876382024000684-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Integrative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382024000684\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Integrative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382024000684","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Methodological quality evaluation of animal experiments on traditional Chinese medicine formulas for glaucoma: A systematic review
Introduction
This review aimed to evaluate the methodology and reporting quality of preclinical studies on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) intervention for glaucoma, and explore areas for improvement.
Methods
Eight Chinese and English databases were searched for animal experiment articles on TCM formulas for glaucoma. The risk of bias was evaluated using the SYRCLE's tool, the reporting quality using the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines and the GSPC checklist.
Results
Seventy-two articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for full-text review. According to the SYRCLE's tool, 7 (70%) of the 10 items had a low-risk rate of less than 50%, high-risk items were focused on selectivity bias, implementation bias, and measurement bias. Results of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines showed that 20 (53%) of the 38 sub-items had a high-agreement rate of less than 50%. Using the GSPC checklist, it was determined that 10 (53%) of the 19 sub-items had high-agreement rates of less than 50%. Randomization, blinding, ethical statements, housing and husbandry, animal care and monitoring, and protocol registration were low-agreement rate aspects of study reporting.
Conclusion
The methodology and reporting quality of animal studies on TCM formulas for glaucoma is generally low. It is advised to further refer to the SYRCLE's tool and reporting guidelines, to enhance the design, performance, and reporting of animal experiments to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of results.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Integrative Medicine (EuJIM) considers manuscripts from a wide range of complementary and integrative health care disciplines, with a particular focus on whole systems approaches, public health, self management and traditional medical systems. The journal strives to connect conventional medicine and evidence based complementary medicine. We encourage submissions reporting research with relevance for integrative clinical practice and interprofessional education.
EuJIM aims to be of interest to both conventional and integrative audiences, including healthcare practitioners, researchers, health care organisations, educationalists, and all those who seek objective and critical information on integrative medicine. To achieve this aim EuJIM provides an innovative international and interdisciplinary platform linking researchers and clinicians.
The journal focuses primarily on original research articles including systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, other clinical studies, qualitative, observational and epidemiological studies. In addition we welcome short reviews, opinion articles and contributions relating to health services and policy, health economics and psychology.