crime - q是一个统一的工具,用于对动物研究中的方法(技术)质量、报告质量和偏倚风险进行批判性评估。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Medical Research Methodology Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1186/s12874-024-02413-0
Mikkel Schou Andersen, Mikkel Seremet Kofoed, Asger Sand Paludan-Müller, Christian Bonde Pedersen, Tiit Mathiesen, Christian Mawrin, Birgitte Brinkmann Olsen, Bo Halle, Frantz Rom Poulsen
{"title":"crime - q是一个统一的工具,用于对动物研究中的方法(技术)质量、报告质量和偏倚风险进行批判性评估。","authors":"Mikkel Schou Andersen, Mikkel Seremet Kofoed, Asger Sand Paludan-Müller, Christian Bonde Pedersen, Tiit Mathiesen, Christian Mawrin, Birgitte Brinkmann Olsen, Bo Halle, Frantz Rom Poulsen","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02413-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Systematic reviews within the field of animal research are becoming more common. However, in animal translational research, issues related to methodological quality and quality of reporting continue to arise, potentially leading to underestimation or overestimation of the effects of interventions or prevent studies from being replicated. The various tools and checklists available to ensure good-quality studies and proper reporting include both unique and/or overlapping items and/or simply lack necessary elements or are too situational to certain conditions or diseases. Currently, there is no tool available, which covers all aspects of animal models, from bench-top activities to animal facilities, hence a new tool is needed. This tool should be designed to be able to assess all kinds of animal studies such as old, new, low quality, high quality, interventional and noninterventional on. It should do this on multiple levels through items on quality of reporting, methodological (technical) quality, and risk of bias, for use in assessing the overall quality of studies involving animal research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>During a systematic review of meningioma models in animals, we developed a novel unifying tool that can assess all types of animal studies from multiple perspectives. The tool was inspired by the Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) checklist, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, and SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, while also incorporating unique items. We used the interrater agreement percentage and Cohen's kappa index to test the interrater agreement between two independent reviewers for the items in the tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was high interrater agreement across all items (92.9%, 95% CI 91.0-94.8). Cohen's kappa index showed quality of reporting had the best mean index of 0.86 (95%-CI 0.78-0.94), methodological quality had a mean index of 0.83 (95%-CI 0.78-0.94) and finally the items from SYRCLE's risk of bias had a mean kappa index of 0.68 (95%-CI 0.57-0.79).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Critical Appraisal of Methodological (technical) Quality, Quality of Reporting and Risk of Bias in Animal Research (CRIME-Q) tool unifies a broad spectrum of information (both unique items and items inspired by other methods) about the quality of reporting and methodological (technical) quality, and contains items from SYRCLE's risk of bias. The tool is intended for use in assessing overall study quality across multiple domains and items and is not, unlike other tools, restricted to any particular model or study design (whether interventional or noninterventional). It is also easy to apply when designing and conducting animal experiments to ensure proper reporting and design in terms of replicability, transparency, and validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"306"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11656974/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CRIME-Q-a unifying tool for critical appraisal of methodological (technical) quality, quality of reporting and risk of bias in animal research.\",\"authors\":\"Mikkel Schou Andersen, Mikkel Seremet Kofoed, Asger Sand Paludan-Müller, Christian Bonde Pedersen, Tiit Mathiesen, Christian Mawrin, Birgitte Brinkmann Olsen, Bo Halle, Frantz Rom Poulsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12874-024-02413-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Systematic reviews within the field of animal research are becoming more common. However, in animal translational research, issues related to methodological quality and quality of reporting continue to arise, potentially leading to underestimation or overestimation of the effects of interventions or prevent studies from being replicated. The various tools and checklists available to ensure good-quality studies and proper reporting include both unique and/or overlapping items and/or simply lack necessary elements or are too situational to certain conditions or diseases. Currently, there is no tool available, which covers all aspects of animal models, from bench-top activities to animal facilities, hence a new tool is needed. This tool should be designed to be able to assess all kinds of animal studies such as old, new, low quality, high quality, interventional and noninterventional on. It should do this on multiple levels through items on quality of reporting, methodological (technical) quality, and risk of bias, for use in assessing the overall quality of studies involving animal research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>During a systematic review of meningioma models in animals, we developed a novel unifying tool that can assess all types of animal studies from multiple perspectives. The tool was inspired by the Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) checklist, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, and SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, while also incorporating unique items. We used the interrater agreement percentage and Cohen's kappa index to test the interrater agreement between two independent reviewers for the items in the tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was high interrater agreement across all items (92.9%, 95% CI 91.0-94.8). Cohen's kappa index showed quality of reporting had the best mean index of 0.86 (95%-CI 0.78-0.94), methodological quality had a mean index of 0.83 (95%-CI 0.78-0.94) and finally the items from SYRCLE's risk of bias had a mean kappa index of 0.68 (95%-CI 0.57-0.79).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Critical Appraisal of Methodological (technical) Quality, Quality of Reporting and Risk of Bias in Animal Research (CRIME-Q) tool unifies a broad spectrum of information (both unique items and items inspired by other methods) about the quality of reporting and methodological (technical) quality, and contains items from SYRCLE's risk of bias. The tool is intended for use in assessing overall study quality across multiple domains and items and is not, unlike other tools, restricted to any particular model or study design (whether interventional or noninterventional). It is also easy to apply when designing and conducting animal experiments to ensure proper reporting and design in terms of replicability, transparency, and validity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"306\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11656974/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02413-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02413-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:动物研究领域的系统综述正变得越来越普遍。然而,在动物转化研究中,与方法质量和报告质量有关的问题继续出现,可能导致对干预措施效果的低估或高估,或阻止研究被复制。可用于确保高质量研究和适当报告的各种工具和检查表包括独特和/或重叠的项目和/或根本缺乏必要的要素,或对某些条件或疾病过于因时制宜。目前,还没有一种工具可以覆盖动物模型的各个方面,从工作台活动到动物设施,因此需要一种新的工具。该工具应设计成能够评估各种动物研究,如旧的、新的、低质量的、高质量的、介入性的和非介入性的。它应该通过报告质量、方法学(技术)质量和偏倚风险等项目在多个层面上进行评估,以用于评估涉及动物研究的总体质量。方法:在对动物脑膜瘤模型的系统回顾中,我们开发了一种新的统一工具,可以从多个角度评估所有类型的动物研究。该工具的灵感来自于《实验研究动物数据荟萃分析和回顾协作方法》(CAMARADES)清单、ARRIVE 2.0指南和sycle的偏倚风险工具,同时也纳入了独特的项目。我们使用仲裁者协议百分比和Cohen的kappa指数来测试两个独立的评论者对工具中项目的仲裁者协议。结果:所有条目的解释一致性很高(92.9%,95% CI 91.0-94.8)。Cohen的kappa指数显示,报告质量的平均指数为0.86 (95%-CI 0.78-0.94),方法学质量的平均指数为0.83 (95%-CI 0.78-0.94),最后来自sycle的偏倚风险项目的平均kappa指数为0.68 (95%-CI 0.57-0.79)。结论:动物研究中方法(技术)质量、报告质量和偏倚风险的关键评估(CRIME-Q)工具统一了关于报告质量和方法(技术)质量的广泛信息(包括独特的项目和受其他方法启发的项目),并包含来自sycle偏倚风险的项目。该工具旨在用于评估跨多个领域和项目的总体研究质量,与其他工具不同,它不限于任何特定的模型或研究设计(无论是介入性的还是非介入性的)。在设计和进行动物实验时也很容易应用,以确保在可复制性、透明度和有效性方面进行适当的报告和设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
CRIME-Q-a unifying tool for critical appraisal of methodological (technical) quality, quality of reporting and risk of bias in animal research.

Background: Systematic reviews within the field of animal research are becoming more common. However, in animal translational research, issues related to methodological quality and quality of reporting continue to arise, potentially leading to underestimation or overestimation of the effects of interventions or prevent studies from being replicated. The various tools and checklists available to ensure good-quality studies and proper reporting include both unique and/or overlapping items and/or simply lack necessary elements or are too situational to certain conditions or diseases. Currently, there is no tool available, which covers all aspects of animal models, from bench-top activities to animal facilities, hence a new tool is needed. This tool should be designed to be able to assess all kinds of animal studies such as old, new, low quality, high quality, interventional and noninterventional on. It should do this on multiple levels through items on quality of reporting, methodological (technical) quality, and risk of bias, for use in assessing the overall quality of studies involving animal research.

Methods: During a systematic review of meningioma models in animals, we developed a novel unifying tool that can assess all types of animal studies from multiple perspectives. The tool was inspired by the Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) checklist, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, and SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, while also incorporating unique items. We used the interrater agreement percentage and Cohen's kappa index to test the interrater agreement between two independent reviewers for the items in the tool.

Results: There was high interrater agreement across all items (92.9%, 95% CI 91.0-94.8). Cohen's kappa index showed quality of reporting had the best mean index of 0.86 (95%-CI 0.78-0.94), methodological quality had a mean index of 0.83 (95%-CI 0.78-0.94) and finally the items from SYRCLE's risk of bias had a mean kappa index of 0.68 (95%-CI 0.57-0.79).

Conclusions: The Critical Appraisal of Methodological (technical) Quality, Quality of Reporting and Risk of Bias in Animal Research (CRIME-Q) tool unifies a broad spectrum of information (both unique items and items inspired by other methods) about the quality of reporting and methodological (technical) quality, and contains items from SYRCLE's risk of bias. The tool is intended for use in assessing overall study quality across multiple domains and items and is not, unlike other tools, restricted to any particular model or study design (whether interventional or noninterventional). It is also easy to apply when designing and conducting animal experiments to ensure proper reporting and design in terms of replicability, transparency, and validity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
期刊最新文献
A generative model for evaluating missing data methods in large epidemiological cohorts. Discrepancies in safety reporting for chronic back pain clinical trials: an observational study from ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. Multiple states clustering analysis (MSCA), an unsupervised approach to multiple time-to-event electronic health records applied to multimorbidity associated with myocardial infarction. Matching plus regression adjustment for the estimation of the average treatment effect on survival outcomes: a case study with mosunetuzumab in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma. Protocol publication rate and comparison between article, registry and protocol in RCTs.
×
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