Abstract
ObjectiveTo investigate the awareness and use of the Systematic Review Center for Laboratory Animal Experimentation’s (SYRCLE) risk-of-bias tool, the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) reporting guidelines, and Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) in China in basic medical researchers of animal experimental studies.MethodsA national questionnaire-based survey targeting basic medical researchers was carried in China to investigate the basic information and awareness of SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool, ARRIVE guidelines, GSPC, and animal experimental bias risk control factors. The EpiData3.1 software was used for data entry, and Microsoft Excel 2013 was used for statistical analysis in this study. The number of cases (n) and percentage (%) of classified information were statistically described, and the comparison between groups (i.e., current students vs. research staff) was performed using chi-square test.ResultsA total of 298 questionnaires were distributed, and 272 responses were received, which included 266 valid questionnaires (from 118 current students and 148 research staff). Among the 266 survey participants, only 15.8% was aware of the SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool, with significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.003), and the awareness rates of ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC were only 9.4% and 9.0%, respectively; 58.6% survey participants believed that the reports of animal experimental studies in Chinese literature were inadequate, with significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.004). In addition, only approximately 1/3 of the survey participants had read systematic reviews and meta-analysis reports of animal experimental studies; only 16/266 (6.0%) had carried out/participated in and 11/266 (4.1%) had published systematic reviews/meta-analysis of animal experimental studies.ConclusionsThe awareness and use rates of SYRCLE’s risk-of-bias tool, the ARRIVE guidelines, and the GSPC were low among Chinese basic medical researchers. Therefore, specific measures are necessary to promote and popularize these standards and specifications and to introduce these standards into guidelines of Chinese domestic journals as soon as possible to raise awareness and increase use rates of researchers and journal editors, thereby improving the quality of animal experimental methods and reports.
Highlights
As an important bridge between basic medical research and clinical trials, animal experimental studies are important to validate the safety and efficacy of the interventions and to determine whether new interventions can be applied to clinical trials [1, 2]
Among the 266 survey participants, only 15.8% was aware of the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE)’s risk of bias tool, with significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.003), and the awareness rates of Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiment (ARRIVE) guidelines and Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) were only 9.4% and 9.0%, respectively; 58.6% survey participants believed that the reports of animal experimental studies in Chinese literature were inadequate, with significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.004)
The awareness and use rates of SYRCLE’s risk-of-bias tool, the ARRIVE guidelines, and the GSPC were low among Chinese basic medical researchers
Summary
As an important bridge between basic medical research and clinical trials, animal experimental studies are important to validate the safety and efficacy of the interventions and to determine whether new interventions can be applied to clinical trials [1, 2]. Following the publication of these standards, to design more rigorous animal experimental designs and to effectively control risk of bias, Hooijmans and other researchers from the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) in the Netherlands used Cochrane’s risk-of-bias tool (as recommended by the Cochrane Handbook [12]) to study, draft, and develop SYRCLE’s risk-of-bias tool for animal experimental studies, which was published in 2014 [13] These guidelines have important implications for the scientific design, rigorous implementation, and regulatory reporting of animal experimental studies. A study by Fang et al [15] in China conducted a relevant survey with animal experimental researchers in Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, China, the survey was limited to the awareness of the ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
