ArticleAnnals of intensive care2014
The methodological quality of animal research in critical care: the public face of science.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Intraperitoneal drug delivery systems releasing cytostatic agents to target gastro-intestinal peritoneal metastases in laboratory animals: a systematic review.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2022Pooled it
- Inadequate awareness of adherence to ARRIVE guidelines, regarding reporting quality of hernia models repaired with meshes: a systematic review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Methodological standards, quality of reporting and regulatory compliance in animal research on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review.BMJ open science · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Beneficial effects of citrulline enteral administration on sepsis-induced T cell mitochondrial dysfunction.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Quality of reporting and adherence to the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 for preclinical degradable metal research in animal models of bone defect and fracture: a systematic review.Regenerative biomaterials · 2022Review
- Article
- Do oncology researchers adhere to reproducible and transparent principles? A cross-sectional survey of published oncology literature.BMJ open · 2019Article
- The reporting quality of acupuncture for neurogenesis in experimental ischemic stroke study.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Part I: Minimum Quality Threshold in Preclinical Sepsis Studies (MQTiPSS) for Study Design and Humane Modeling Endpoints.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2019Review
- Premise for Standardized Sepsis Models.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2019Article
- Animal experimental research design in critical care.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Hyperoxia provokes a time- and dose-dependent inflammatory response in mechanically ventilated mice, irrespective of tidal volumes.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2017Article
- The Weak Spots in Contemporary Science (and How to Fix Them).Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2017Review
- Publication bias in animal research presented at the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference.BMC research notes · 2017Article
- Pain and Laboratory Animals: Publication Practices for Better Data Reproducibility and Better Animal Welfare.PloS one · 2016Article
- Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement.PLoS biology · 2015Article
- Expectations for methodology and translation of animal research: a survey of health care workers.BMC medical ethics · 2015Article
- A study to assess the methodological quality ofIndian journal of pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnimal research (AR) findings often do not translate to humans; one potential reason is the poor methodological quality of AR. We aimed to determine this quality of AR reported in critical care journals.
methodsAll AR published from January to June 2012 in three high-impact critical care journals were reviewed. A case report form and instruction manual with clear definitions were created, based on published recommendations, including the ARRIVE guidelines. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics.
resultsSeventy-seven AR publications were reviewed. Our primary outcome (animal strain, sex, and weight or age described) was reported in 52 (68%; 95% confidence interval, 56% to 77%). Of the 77 publications, 47 (61%) reported randomization; of these, 3 (6%) reported allocation concealment, and 1 (2%) the randomization procedure. Of the 77 publications, 31 (40%) reported some type of blinding; of these, disease induction (2, 7%), intervention (7, 23%), and/or subjective outcomes (17, 55%) were blinded. A sample size calculation was reported in 4/77 (5%). Animal numbers were missing in the Methods section in 16 (21%) publications; when stated, the median was 32 (range 6 to 320; interquartile range, 21 to 70). Extra animals used were mentioned in the Results section in 31 (40%) publications; this number was unclear in 23 (74%), and >100 for 12 (16%). When reporting most outcomes, numbers with denominators were given in 35 (45%), with no unaccounted numbers in 24 (31%), and no animals excluded from analysis in 20 (26%). Most (49, 64%) studies reported >40, and another 19 (25%) reported 21 to 40 statistical comparisons. Internal validity limitations were discussed in 7 (9%), and external validity (to humans) discussed in 71 (92%), most with no (30, 42%) or only a vague (9, 13%) limitation to this external validity mentioned.
conclusionsThe reported methodological quality of AR was poor. Unless the quality of AR significantly improves, the practice may be in serious jeopardy of losing public support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.