Dataset Information

Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.

ABSTRACT: Poor reporting quality may contribute to irreproducibility of results and failed 'bench-to-bedside' translation. Consequently, guidelines have been developed to improve the complete and transparent reporting of in vivo preclinical studies. To examine the impact of such guidelines on core methodological and analytical reporting items in the preclinical anesthesiology literature, we sampled a cohort of studies. Preclinical in vivo studies published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anaesthesia, and the British Journal of Anaesthesia (2008-2009, 2014-2016) were identified. Data was extracted independently and in duplicate. Reporting completeness was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research. Risk ratios were used for comparative analyses. Of 7615 screened articles, 604 met our inclusion criteria and included experiments reporting on 52 490 animals. The most common topic of investigation was pain and analgesia (30%), rodents were most frequently used (77%), and studies were most commonly conducted in the United States (36%). Use of preclinical reporting guidelines was listed in 10% of applicable articles. A minority of studies fully reported on replicates (0.3%), randomization (10%), blinding (12%), sample-size estimation (3%), and inclusion/exclusion criteria (5%). Statistics were well reported (81%). Comparative analysis demonstrated few differences in reporting rigor between journals, including those that endorsed reporting guidelines. Principal items of study design were infrequently reported, with few differences between journals. Methods to improve implementation and adherence to community-based reporting guidelines may be necessary to increase transparent and consistent reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.

SUBMITTER: Fergusson DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6532843 | biostudies-other | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.

Fergusson Dean A DA Avey Marc T MT Barron Carly C CC Bocock Mathew M Biefer Kristen E KE Boet Sylvain S Bourque Stephane L SL Conic Isidora I Chen Kai K Dong Yuan Yi YY Fox Grace M GM George Ronald B RB Goldenberg Neil M NM Gragasin Ferrante S FS Harsha Prathiba P Hong Patrick J PJ James Tyler E TE Larrigan Sarah M SM MacNeil Jenna L JL Manuel Courtney A CA Maximos Sarah S Mazer David D Mittal Rohan R McGinn Ryan R Nguyen Long H LH Patel Abhilasha A Richebé Philippe P Saha Tarit K TK Steinberg Benjamin E BE Sampson Sonja D SD Stewart Duncan J DJ Syed Summer S Vella Kimberly K Wesch Neil L NL Lalu Manoj M MM

PloS one 20190523 5

Poor reporting quality may contribute to irreproducibility of results and failed 'bench-to-bedside' translation. Consequently, guidelines have been developed to improve the complete and transparent reporting of in vivo preclinical studies. To examine the impact of such guidelines on core methodological and analytical reporting items in the preclinical anesthesiology literature, we sampled a cohort of studies. Preclinical in vivo studies published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anaest ...[more]

PMID: 31120888

Similar Datasets

Project description:RationaleThis study aimed to investigate the quality of reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia in experimental studies in small laboratory mammals published in the top ten impact factor journals.MethodsA descriptive systematic review was conducted and data was abstracted from the ten highest ranked journals with respect to impact factor in the categories 'Anesthesiology', 'Critical Care Medicine' and 'Respiratory System' as defined by the 2012 Journal Citation Reports. Inclusion criteria according to PICOS criteria were as follows: 1) population: small laboratory mammals; 2) intervention: any form of anesthesia and/or euthanasia; 3) comparison: not specified; 4) primary outcome: type of anesthesia, anesthetic agents and type of euthanasia; secondary outcome: animal characteristics, monitoring, mechanical ventilation, fluid management, postoperative pain therapy, animal care approval, sample size calculation and performed interventions; 5) study: experimental studies. Anesthesia, euthanasia, and monitoring were analyzed per performed intervention in each article.ResultsThe search yielded 845 articles with 1,041 interventions of interest. Throughout the manuscripts we found poor quality and frequency of reporting with respect to completeness of data on animal characteristics as well as euthanasia, while anesthesia (732/1041, 70.3%) and interventions without survival (970/1041, 93.2%) per se were frequently reported. Premedication and neuromuscular blocking agents were reported in 169/732 (23.1%) and 38/732 (5.2%) interventions, respectively. Frequency of reporting of analgesia during (117/610, 19.1%) and after painful procedures (38/364, 10.4%) was low. Euthanasia practice was reported as anesthesia (348/501, 69%), transcardial perfusion (37/501, 8%), carbon dioxide (26/501, 6%), decapitation (22/501, 5%), exsanguination (23/501, 5%), other (25/501, 5%) and not specified (20/501, 4%, respectively.ConclusionsThe present systematic review revealed insufficient reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia methods throughout experimental studies in small laboratory mammals. Specific guidelines for anesthesia and euthanasia regimens should be considered to achieve comparability, quality of animal experiments and animal welfare. These measures are of special interest when translating experimental findings to future clinical applications.

Dataset Information

Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.

Publications

Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets