Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews

被引:19
|
作者
Hunniford, Victoria T. [1 ]
Montroy, Joshua [1 ]
Fergusson, Dean A. [1 ,2 ]
Avey, Marc T. [3 ]
Wever, Kimberley E. [4 ]
McCann, Sarah K. [5 ,6 ]
Foster, Madison [1 ]
Fox, Grace [1 ]
Lafreniere, Mackenzie [1 ]
Ghaly, Mira [1 ]
Mannell, Sydney [1 ]
Godwinska, Karolina [1 ]
Gentles, Avonae [1 ]
Selim, Shehab [2 ]
MacNeil, Jenna [2 ]
Sikora, Lindsey [7 ]
Sena, Emily S. [8 ]
Page, Matthew J. [9 ]
Macleod, Malcolm [8 ]
Moher, David [10 ]
Lalu, Manoj M. [1 ,11 ]
机构
[1] Ottawa Hosp Res Inst, Blueprint Translat Res Grp, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Ottawa, Dept Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[3] ICF Int Inc, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[4] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Radboud Inst Hlth Sci, SYstemat Review Ctr Lab Anim Expt SYRCLE, Med Ctr, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[5] Berlin Inst Hlth BIH, QUEST Ctr Transforming Biomed Res, Berlin, Germany
[6] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Berlin, Germany
[7] Univ Ottawa, Hlth Sci Lib, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[8] Univ Edinburgh, Ctr Clin Brain Sci, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
[9] Monash Univ, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[10] Ottawa Hosp Res Inst, Ctr Journalol, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[11] Univ Ottawa, Ottawa Hosp, Dept Anesthesiol & Pain Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
基金
英国国家替代、减少和改良动物研究中心;
关键词
ANIMAL-EXPERIMENTS; SEARCH FILTER; METAANALYSES; GUIDELINES; DESIGN; BIAS;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001177
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学]; Q7 [分子生物学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
In an effort to better utilize published evidence obtained from animal experiments, systematic reviews of preclinical studies are increasingly more common-along with the methods and tools to appraise them (e.g., SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation [SYRCLE's] risk of bias tool). We performed a cross-sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews (2015-2018) and examined a range of epidemiological characteristics and used a 46-item checklist to assess reporting details. We identified 442 reviews published across 43 countries in 23 different disease domains that used 26 animal species. Reporting of key details to ensure transparency and reproducibility was inconsistent across reviews and within article sections. Items were most completely reported in the title, introduction, and results sections of the reviews, while least reported in the methods and discussion sections. Less than half of reviews reported that a risk of bias assessment for internal and external validity was undertaken, and none reported methods for evaluating construct validity. Our results demonstrate that a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent. Our study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on tuberculosis
    Nicolau, I.
    Ling, D.
    Tian, L.
    Lienhardt, C.
    Pai, M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TUBERCULOSIS AND LUNG DISEASE, 2013, 17 (09) : 1160 - 1169
  • [42] Reporting of harms in systematic reviews and their primary studies
    Reeves, Barnaby C.
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 349
  • [43] Risk of bias reporting in Cochrane systematic reviews
    Hopp, Lisa
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING PRACTICE, 2015, 21 (05) : 683 - 686
  • [44] Transparency of reporting search strategies in systematic reviews
    K. M. Saif-Ur-Rahman
    Hypertension Research, 2022, 45 : 1838 - 1839
  • [45] Strong heterogeneity of outcome reporting in systematic reviews
    Sautenet, Benedicte
    Contentin, Laetitia
    Bigot, Adrien
    Giraudeau, Bruno
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2016, 75 : 93 - 99
  • [46] Comprehensive computer searches and reporting in systematic reviews
    Fehrmann, Paul
    Thomas, Joelle
    RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2011, 2 (01) : 15 - 32
  • [47] Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review
    Zorzela, Liliane
    Golder, Su
    Liu, Yali
    Pilkington, Karen
    Hartling, Lisa
    Joffe, Ari
    Loke, Yoon
    Vohra, Sunita
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 348
  • [48] Reporting quality in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: a systematic review
    Elshafay, Abdelrahman
    Omran, Esraa Salah
    Abdelkhalek, Mariam
    El-Badry, Mohamed Omar
    Eisa, Heba Gamal
    Fala, Salma Y.
    Dang, Thao
    Ghanem, Mohammad A. T.
    Elbadawy, Maha
    Elhady, Mohamed Tamer
    Nguyen Lam Vuong
    Hirayama, Kenji
    Nguyen Tien Huy
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2019, 35 (09) : 1631 - 1641
  • [49] Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses)
    Walther, S.
    Schuetz, G. M.
    Hamm, B.
    Dewey, M.
    ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2011, 183 (12): : 1106 - 1110
  • [50] Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology
    Nagendrababu, V.
    Duncan, H. F.
    Tsesis, I.
    Sathorn, C.
    Pulikkotil, S. J.
    Dharmarajan, L.
    Dummer, P. M. H.
    INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL, 2019, 52 (08) : 1096 - 1107