Bob P Hermans, Steven E M Poos, Daniël I M van Dort, Jort Evers, Wilson W L Li, Erik H F M van der Heijden, Ad F T M Verhagen, Harry van Goor, Richard P G Ten Broek
{"title":"评估和开发用于预防肺空气泄漏的密封剂:动物模型的系统综述。","authors":"Bob P Hermans, Steven E M Poos, Daniël I M van Dort, Jort Evers, Wilson W L Li, Erik H F M van der Heijden, Ad F T M Verhagen, Harry van Goor, Richard P G Ten Broek","doi":"10.1177/00236772231164873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sealants may provide a solution for pulmonary air leakage (PAL), but their clinical application is debatable. For sealant comparison, standardized animal models are lacking. This systematic review aims to assess methodology and quality of animal models for PAL and sealant evaluation. All animal models investigating lung sealing devices (e.g., staplers, glues, energy devices) to prevent or treat PAL were retrieved systematically from Embase, Pubmed and Web of science. Methodological study characteristics, risk of bias, reporting quality and publication bias were assessed. A total of 71 studies were included (<i>N</i> = 75 experiments, <i>N</i> = 1659 animals). Six different species and 18 strains were described; 92% of experiments used healthy animals, disease models were used in only six studies. Lesions to produce PAL were heterogenous, and only 11 studies used a previously reported technique, encompassing <i>N</i> = 5 unique lesions. Clinically relevant outcomes were used in the minority of studies (imaging 16%, air leak 10.7%, air leak duration 4%). Reporting quality was poor, but revealed an upward trend per decade. Overall, high risk of bias was present, and only 18.7% used a negative control group. All but one study without control groups claimed positive outcomes (95.8%), in contrast to 84.3% using positive or negative control groups, which also concluded equivocal, adverse or inconclusive outcomes. In conclusion, animal studies evaluating sealants for prevention of PAL are heterogenous and of poor reporting quality. Using negative control groups, disease models and quantifiable outcomes seem important to increase validity and relevance. Further research is needed to reach consensus for model development and standardization.</p>","PeriodicalId":18013,"journal":{"name":"Laboratory Animals","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating and developing sealants for the prevention of pulmonary air leakage: A systematic review of animal models.\",\"authors\":\"Bob P Hermans, Steven E M Poos, Daniël I M van Dort, Jort Evers, Wilson W L Li, Erik H F M van der Heijden, Ad F T M Verhagen, Harry van Goor, Richard P G Ten Broek\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00236772231164873\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Sealants may provide a solution for pulmonary air leakage (PAL), but their clinical application is debatable. For sealant comparison, standardized animal models are lacking. This systematic review aims to assess methodology and quality of animal models for PAL and sealant evaluation. All animal models investigating lung sealing devices (e.g., staplers, glues, energy devices) to prevent or treat PAL were retrieved systematically from Embase, Pubmed and Web of science. Methodological study characteristics, risk of bias, reporting quality and publication bias were assessed. A total of 71 studies were included (<i>N</i> = 75 experiments, <i>N</i> = 1659 animals). Six different species and 18 strains were described; 92% of experiments used healthy animals, disease models were used in only six studies. Lesions to produce PAL were heterogenous, and only 11 studies used a previously reported technique, encompassing <i>N</i> = 5 unique lesions. Clinically relevant outcomes were used in the minority of studies (imaging 16%, air leak 10.7%, air leak duration 4%). Reporting quality was poor, but revealed an upward trend per decade. Overall, high risk of bias was present, and only 18.7% used a negative control group. All but one study without control groups claimed positive outcomes (95.8%), in contrast to 84.3% using positive or negative control groups, which also concluded equivocal, adverse or inconclusive outcomes. In conclusion, animal studies evaluating sealants for prevention of PAL are heterogenous and of poor reporting quality. Using negative control groups, disease models and quantifiable outcomes seem important to increase validity and relevance. Further research is needed to reach consensus for model development and standardization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laboratory Animals\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laboratory Animals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772231164873\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laboratory Animals","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772231164873","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
密封剂可提供 肺空气渗漏(PAL)的解决方案,但其临床应用仍有争议。对于密封剂的比较,缺乏标准化的动物模型。本系统综述旨在评估PAL和密封剂评估的动物模型的方法和质量。从Embase、Pubmed和Web of science系统检索了所有研究肺密封装置(如缝合器、胶水、能量装置)预防或治疗PAL的动物模型。评估了方法学研究特征、偏倚风险、报告质量和发表偏倚。共纳入71项研究(N = 75个实验,N = 1659只动物)。描述了6个不同的物种和18个菌株;92%的实验使用了健康动物,只有六项研究使用了疾病模型。产生PAL的病变是异质性的,只有11项研究使用了先前报道的技术,包括N = 5个独特的病变。少数研究使用了临床相关结果(影像学16%,漏气10.7%,漏气持续时间4%)。报告质量很差,但每十年呈上升趋势。总体而言,存在较高的偏倚风险,只有18.7%的患者使用阴性对照组。除了一项没有对照组的研究外,其他所有研究都声称结果为阳性(95.8%),而使用阳性或阴性对照组的结果为84.3%,后者也得出了模棱两可、不良或不确定的结果。总之,评估密封剂预防PAL的动物研究是异质性的,报告质量较差。使用阴性对照组、疾病模型和可量化结果似乎对提高有效性和相关性很重要。需要进行进一步的研究,以便在模型开发和标准化方面达成共识。
Evaluating and developing sealants for the prevention of pulmonary air leakage: A systematic review of animal models.
Sealants may provide a solution for pulmonary air leakage (PAL), but their clinical application is debatable. For sealant comparison, standardized animal models are lacking. This systematic review aims to assess methodology and quality of animal models for PAL and sealant evaluation. All animal models investigating lung sealing devices (e.g., staplers, glues, energy devices) to prevent or treat PAL were retrieved systematically from Embase, Pubmed and Web of science. Methodological study characteristics, risk of bias, reporting quality and publication bias were assessed. A total of 71 studies were included (N = 75 experiments, N = 1659 animals). Six different species and 18 strains were described; 92% of experiments used healthy animals, disease models were used in only six studies. Lesions to produce PAL were heterogenous, and only 11 studies used a previously reported technique, encompassing N = 5 unique lesions. Clinically relevant outcomes were used in the minority of studies (imaging 16%, air leak 10.7%, air leak duration 4%). Reporting quality was poor, but revealed an upward trend per decade. Overall, high risk of bias was present, and only 18.7% used a negative control group. All but one study without control groups claimed positive outcomes (95.8%), in contrast to 84.3% using positive or negative control groups, which also concluded equivocal, adverse or inconclusive outcomes. In conclusion, animal studies evaluating sealants for prevention of PAL are heterogenous and of poor reporting quality. Using negative control groups, disease models and quantifiable outcomes seem important to increase validity and relevance. Further research is needed to reach consensus for model development and standardization.
期刊介绍:
The international journal of laboratory animal science and welfare, Laboratory Animals publishes peer-reviewed original papers and reviews on all aspects of the use of animals in biomedical research. The journal promotes improvements in the welfare or well-being of the animals used, it particularly focuses on research that reduces the number of animals used or which replaces animal models with in vitro alternatives.