2023
DOI: 10.1097/js9.0000000000000475
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lack of concordance between reporting guidelines and risk of bias assessments of preclinical studies; a call for integrated recommendations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

2
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We considered the level of evidence for our included preclinical articles to be moderate, due to serious risks of bias. Conversely, it is recently argued that the current guidelines for the evaluation of the risk of bias in preclinical studies are not in compliance with the guidelines on how to conduct them; therefore, the risk of bias could be overestimated due to the lack of reporting in some domains of risk of bias assessment, simply because the authors did not document them in their manuscripts [ 72 ]. Since our results demonstrated an acceptable efficacy for exercise in the management of neuropathic pain, we prominently recommend further clinical research with robust methodologies in this field.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We considered the level of evidence for our included preclinical articles to be moderate, due to serious risks of bias. Conversely, it is recently argued that the current guidelines for the evaluation of the risk of bias in preclinical studies are not in compliance with the guidelines on how to conduct them; therefore, the risk of bias could be overestimated due to the lack of reporting in some domains of risk of bias assessment, simply because the authors did not document them in their manuscripts [ 72 ]. Since our results demonstrated an acceptable efficacy for exercise in the management of neuropathic pain, we prominently recommend further clinical research with robust methodologies in this field.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, it has recently been argued that due to the lack of concordance between guidelines for conducting preclinical studies and guidelines for their quality assessment, some domains might be at high risk of bias, solely due to the fact that the authors did not document them in their articles, even though those recommendations might have been followed during the experiment [ 56 ]. The overall level of evidence was downrated only due to the serious risk of bias.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%