Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39695994›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

CRIME-Q-a unifying tool for critical appraisal of methodological (technical) quality, quality of reporting and risk of bias in animal research.

Mikkel Schou Andersen, Mikkel Seremet Kofoed, Asger Sand Paludan-Müller, Christian Bonde Pedersen, Tiit Mathiesen, Christian Mawrin, Birgitte Brinkmann Olsen, Bo Halle, Frantz Rom Poulsen

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Mikkel Schou AndersenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. Mikkel.c.schou.andersen@rsyd.dk.
Mikkel Seremet KofoedDepartment of Neurosurgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Asger Sand Paludan-MüllerNordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian Bonde PedersenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Tiit MathiesenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian MawrinDepartment of Neuropathology, Otto-Von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany.
Birgitte Brinkmann OlsenDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Bo HalleDepartment of Neurosurgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Frantz Rom PoulsenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews within the field of animal research are becoming more common. However, in animal translational research, issues related to methodological quality and quality of reporting continue to arise, potentially leading to underestimation or overestimation of the effects of interventions or prevent studies from being replicated. The various tools and checklists available to ensure good-quality studies and proper reporting include both unique and/or overlapping items and/or simply lack necessary elements or are too situational to certain conditions or diseases. Currently, there is no tool available, which covers all aspects of animal models, from bench-top activities to animal facilities, hence a new tool is needed. This tool should be designed to be able to assess all kinds of animal studies such as old, new, low quality, high quality, interventional and noninterventional on. It should do this on multiple levels through items on quality of reporting, methodological (technical) quality, and risk of bias, for use in assessing the overall quality of studies involving animal research.

methodsDuring a systematic review of meningioma models in animals, we developed a novel unifying tool that can assess all types of animal studies from multiple perspectives. The tool was inspired by the Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) checklist, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, and SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, while also incorporating unique items. We used the interrater agreement percentage and Cohen's kappa index to test the interrater agreement between two independent reviewers for the items in the tool.

resultsThere was high interrater agreement across all items (92.9%, 95% CI 91.0-94.8). Cohen's kappa index showed quality of reporting had the best mean index of 0.86 (95%-CI 0.78-0.94), methodological quality had a mean index of 0.83 (95%-CI 0.78-0.94) and finally the items from SYRCLE's risk of bias had a mean kappa index of 0.68 (95%-CI 0.57-0.79).

conclusionsThe Critical Appraisal of Methodological (technical) Quality, Quality of Reporting and Risk of Bias in Animal Research (CRIME-Q) tool unifies a broad spectrum of information (both unique items and items inspired by other methods) about the quality of reporting and methodological (technical) quality, and contains items from SYRCLE's risk of bias. The tool is intended for use in assessing overall study quality across multiple domains and items and is not, unlike other tools, restricted to any particular model or study design (whether interventional or noninterventional). It is also easy to apply when designing and conducting animal experiments to ensure proper reporting and design in terms of replicability, transparency, and validity.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationBiasChecklistResearch DesignAnimalsHumansAnimal researchCritical appraisalMethodological approachPreclinical methodologyPreclinical researchPreclinical studiesRisk of biasSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39695994
PMCPMC11656974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.