Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews.
Journal
PLoS biology
ISSN: 1545-7885
Titre abrégé: PLoS Biol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101183755
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
received:
15
10
2020
accepted:
05
03
2021
revised:
17
05
2021
pubmed:
6
5
2021
medline:
8
9
2021
entrez:
5
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33951050
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001177
pii: PBIOLOGY-D-20-03062
pmc: PMC8128274
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e3001177Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Dr. Malcolm Macleod received a grant from the NC3Rs as salary support; Dr. Manoj Lalu reports support from The Ottawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds Association and from a University of Ottawa Junior Research Chair in Innovative Translational Research during the conduct of the study; and Dr. Emily Sena reports support from Stroke Association (SAL-SNC 18\1003) during the conduct of the study.
Références
Lab Anim. 2011 Oct;45(4):225-30
pubmed: 21737463
PLoS Med. 2007 Mar 27;4(3):e78
pubmed: 17388659
PLoS Med. 2016 May 24;13(5):e1002028
pubmed: 27218655
Lab Anim. 2010 Jul;44(3):170-5
pubmed: 20551243
Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 19;6(1):263
pubmed: 29258593
J Environ Sci Health B. 2006;41(7):1245-58
pubmed: 16923604
J Transl Med. 2018 Nov 7;16(1):304
pubmed: 30404629
PLoS Med. 2013;10(7):e1001489
pubmed: 23935460
Lab Anim. 2014 Jan;48(1):88
pubmed: 23836850
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Mar 13;6:10
pubmed: 16533396
BMJ. 2014 Jun 25;348:g3804
pubmed: 24965222
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Mar 26;14:43
pubmed: 24667063
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Feb;118:60-68
pubmed: 31740319
Elife. 2021 Jan 12;10:
pubmed: 33432925
J Neurosci Methods. 2014 Jan 15;221:92-102
pubmed: 24099992
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:35-48
pubmed: 16053582
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
BMC Emerg Med. 2019 Feb 11;19(1):19
pubmed: 30744570
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2014 May;34(5):737-42
pubmed: 24549183
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 26;9(3):e89981
pubmed: 24670965
ILAR J. 2014;55(3):427-37
pubmed: 25541545
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 26;8(12):e83138
pubmed: 24386151
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 26;9(12):e116016
pubmed: 25541734
Lab Anim. 2012 Jan;46(1):24-31
pubmed: 22037056
Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2020;257:299-317
pubmed: 31620915
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008 Jan;3(1):253-60
pubmed: 18178786