ArticleHeliyon2023
Reporting quality and risk of bias assessment of animal research on Chaihu-Shugan-San for depression: A systematic review.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Chaihu-Shugan-San (CSS) is a traditional Chinese medicine formula employed to treat depression. We aim to conduct a reporting quality assessment and risk of bias evaluation of animal research on CSS for depression. Methods: To acquire eligible studies, two reviewers searched plentiful databases from inception to October 23rd, 2021. Reporting quality assessment and risk of bias assessment of the included animal studies were evaluated by using Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines and the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool, respectively. Results: The initial search identified 720 records, while only 30 studies were included. The result of the reporting quality assessment was inferior, items 17 and 19 were not reported at all. The details of five items (items 3, 6, 7, 10, and 18) were not reported. The outcome of the risk of bias assessment suggested that half of the entries (5/10) displayed an unclear risk of bias and a high risk of bias. Blinding with regard to performance bias and detection bias revealed an unclear risk of bias (100%), followed by baseline characteristics (76.67%) and sequence generation (60%). Random outcome assessment showed a high risk of bias (100%). Conclusion: The included animal studies exhibited methodological defects and imprecise reporting. Hence, the ARRIVE guidelines and SYRCLE's RoB tool should be disseminated among basic medical researchers examining CSS for depression to publish studies with low risk of bias and sufficient reporting so that the animal research can promptly be transformed into clinical 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.