Inadequate awareness of adherence to ARRIVE guidelines, regarding reporting quality of hernia models repaired with meshes: a systematic review.

Abstract

Research papers involving animal studies often display poor reporting standards, leading to lower study reproducibility. We aim to determine the difference in reporting animal studies regarding abdominal wall hernia repair with mesh placement, before and after the publication of ARRIVE-2010 (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. Furthermore, we aim to present the most up-to-date reporting quality using the updated ARRIVE-2020 as criteria. All animal studies concerning hernia repair with meshes were systematically searched. Articles published in the 5years leading up to the ARRIVE-2010 (pre-ARRIVE) and articles within the last 5years until the updated ARRIVE 2.0 (post-ARRIVE) were compared for overall species and specific species separately. Articles published last year were evaluated for presenting fully reported (sub)items. The number of fully reported (sub)items per article was on average significantly higher for pre-ARRIVE than post-ARRIVE for overall species (mean (SD) = 14.0 (2.8) vs. 12.6 (2.5), P < 0.001). The same applies to rabbit (mean (SD) = 14.8 (2.6) vs. 12.6 (2.6), P = 0.001) and pig studies (mean (SD) = 14.5 (2.7) vs. 11.6 (2.6), P = 0.004), with no significance in rat studies (mean (SD) = 13.6 (2.9) vs. 12.9 (2.3), P = 0.076). Significance was found in several (sub)items between pre-ARRIVE and post-ARRIVE (n = 7, 3, 8, and 3 for overall species, rat, rabbit, and pig studies, respectively). General reporting quality of animal experiments has been improved markedly by ARRIVE guidelines. However, more improvements are required considering the arrival of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines.