ArticleCureus2022
A Study to Assess the Quality of Reporting of Animal Research Studies Published in PubMed Indexed Journals: A Retrospective, Cross-Sectional Content Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current rat models of extracorporeal life support following global ischaemia: a scoping review.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Review
- CRIME-Q-a unifying tool for critical appraisal of methodological (technical) quality, quality of reporting and risk of bias in animal research.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA complete and concise pre-clinical experimental research gives detailed information about the disease-specific model, prevents duplication, and saves animal life, money, as well as time. It will also allow readers to effectively interpret and evaluate the work and ensure that others can replicate the experiments described. The present study was conducted to assess the adequacy of animal details provided in published experimental animal studies.
methodsAll in vivo studies published as full-text articles in two PubMed indexed journals (one Indian and one international) from January 2011 to December 2019 and satisfying the inclusion norms were included. A checklist consisting of 27 discrete items subdivided under three domains, viz. animal details, disease model, and guidelines, was used. Every article was assessed by two investigators independently for determining the reporting quality.
resultsOne hundred and seventy-seven studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Age or age range was reported in 20.34% of the articles in the Indian journal and 5.88% articles in the international journal (p=0.019). Housing and husbandry details were reported in all the articles published in the international journal and 82.7% of the articles in the Indian journal (p=0.001). The disease/pathology studied was given in 70.62% of articles published in the Indian journal and 86.27% of articles published in the international journal (p=0.029). None of the studies provided details of genetic modification, health status, sample size calculation, steps taken to minimize bias, and implementation of randomization.
conclusionThere is a need for optimal reporting of certain relevant animal details, disease models, experimental procedures, sample size calculation, and adherence to guidelines by the researchers for which the reporting was found to be sub-par to improve reproducibility and validity of animal research.
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.