Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33243206›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2020

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

Bing Zhao, Yanbiao Jiang, Ting Zhang, Zhizhong Shang, Weiyi Zhang, Kaiyan Hu, Fei Chen, Fan Mei, Qianqian Gao, Li Zhao and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Editorial: Clinical phytopharmacology.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Bing ZhaoEvidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, No.199, Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, 730000, Gansu Province, China.
Yanbiao JiangSecond clinical medical college, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Ting ZhangEvidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, No.199, Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, 730000, Gansu Province, China.
Zhizhong ShangSecond clinical medical college, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Weiyi ZhangSchool of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Kaiyan HuSchool of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Fei ChenSchool of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Fan MeiSchool of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Qianqian GaoSchool of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Li ZhaoSchool of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Joey S W KwongSchool of Public Health and Primary Medical Care, Jockey Club, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 999077, China. jswkwong@hotmail.com.
Bin MaEvidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, No.199, Donggang West Road, Lanzhou City, 730000, Gansu Province, China. kittymb2017@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7247-8714
Lanzhou University · CNLanzhou University Second Hospital · CNChinese University of Hong Kong · HK

Funding

Basic Scientific Research Projects of Central Colleges and Universities of Lanzhou University lzujbky-2018-96National Natural Science Foundation of China 81873184
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 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.

resultsThe 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%.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationAnimalsAnimal WelfareChinaGuideline AdherencePublicationsResearch DesignRetrospective StudiesAnimal experimentsARRIVEReporting quality

Identifiers

PMID33243206
PMCPMC7690085
OpenAlexW3107226591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.