Quality of interventional animal experiments in Chinese journals: compliance with ARRIVE guidelines

Abstract

Background In view of the inadequacy and incompleteness of currently-reported animal experiments and their overall poor quality, we retrospectively evaluated the reporting quality of animal experiments published in Chinese journals adhering to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Results The databases CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM were searched from inception until July 2018. Two appropriately-trained reviewers screened and extracted articles independently. The ARRIVE guidelines were used to assess the quality of the published reports of animal experiments. The compliance rate of every item was analyzed relative to their date of publication. A total of 4342 studies were included, of which 73.0% had been cited ≤5 times. Only 29.0% (1261/4342) were published in journals listed in the Chinese Science Citation Database. The results indicate that the compliance rate of approximately half of the sub-items (51.3%, 20/39) was less than 50%, of which 65.0% (13/20) was even less than 10%. Conclusions The reporting quality of animal experiments in Chinese journals is not at a high level. Following publication of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010, the compliance rate of the majority of its requirements has improved to some extent. However, less attention has been paid to the ethics and welfare of experimental animals, and a number of specific items in the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections continue to not be reported in sufficient detail. Therefore, it is necessary to popularize the ARRIVE guidelines, advocate researchers to adhere to them in the future, and in particular promote the use of the guidelines in specialized journals in order that the design, implementation, and reporting of animal experiments is promoted, to ultimately improve their quality.

A Study to Assess the Quality of Reporting of Animal Research Studies Published in PubMed Indexed Journals: A Retrospective, Cross-Sectional Content Analysis

“…In the present study, most articles published in both the journals mentioned the disease/pathology studied, whereas only about half the studies (45.76% and 56.86% in the Indian and the international journal, respectively) mentioned details about the experimental model. According to a study conducted in China by Zhao et al, 41% of studies did not state the hypothesis or objective of the study as well as the number of animals used in the study [ 13 ]. For research studies including animal research, providing sample size information with calculation is very crucial as, if a researcher selects a smaller number of animals, it may lead to missing any significant difference even if it exists in population and if more number of animals selected then it may lead to unnecessary wastage of resources and may lead to ethical issues [ 14 ].…”

Reporting quality of animal studies published in journals listed in ULAKBIM TR index: a systematic review on compliance to the ARRIVE guidelines

“…While there are underlying reasons common to all animal studies for limited compliance to the guidelines, country-, animal model-, or disease-specific factors should also be considered. For this reason, there are many studies in the literature in which publications from different countries and on various animal models were evaluated for compliance to the ARRIVE guidelines [10,[12][13][14]21]. Turkey has made a significant progress in scientific publishing in recent years and has become the source of an increasing number of biomedical journals and publications.…”

“…Nevertheless, reporting quality of the literature should be continuosly monitored in order to take effective measures to ensure transparency of animal research [9]. The studies evaluating the reporting quality of animal studies have been published on the basis of country, discipline, or animal model [10][11][12][13][14].…”

Development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of animal experiments in the field of traditional Chinese medicine

“…An increasing number of studies have shown 23–27 that medical research reporting guidelines are one of the important means to effectively improve the quality of the medical research. Among them, the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analysis) statement 28 is the current accepted reporting guideline for the systematic review of this study type.…”

“…[18][19][20][21] It is well established that only high-quality studies are likely to be well guided for their clinical translation, which requires not only rigorous design and implementation but also a thorough and standardized reporting. 22 An increasing number of studies have shown [23][24][25][26][27] that medical research reporting guidelines are one of the important means to effectively improve the quality of the medical research. Among them, the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalysis) statement 28 is the current accepted reporting guideline for the systematic review of this study type.…”