Kimberley H J Ting1, Catherine L Hill1,2, Samuel L Whittle1. 1. Rheumatology Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, South Australia, Australia. 2. The Health Observatory, Discipline of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: To systematically investigate the quality of reporting of published interventional animal studies in experimental rheumatology. METHODS: Original scientific publications in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (ARD) and Arthritis and Rheumatism (A&R) from January to December 2012 were identified. Studies were included if they used animal experimental model(s) and involved a treatment intervention. Data were extracted regarding disease type, animal model, intervention type and funding. Each study was assessed for quality of reporting, using the ARRIVE guidelines as a checklist. RESULTS: Forty-one studies (15 ARD, 26 A&R) were analyzed. Ethics approval was not reported or unclear in 22%. Randomization was not reported or unclear in 82.9% of the papers. Only 19.5% and 9.8% of papers reported attrition rate and important adverse events, respectively. Sample size calculation or allocation method was not reported in any paper. Only one study published negative results. CONCLUSION: A number of key study design principles are poorly reported in experimental animal research investigating potential treatments in rheumatology. We support the widespread implementation of the ARRIVE guidelines in the rheumatology literature to promote the publication of manuscripts that allow rigorous appraisal of scientific quality.
AIM: To systematically investigate the quality of reporting of published interventional animal studies in experimental rheumatology. METHODS: Original scientific publications in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (ARD) and Arthritis and Rheumatism (A&R) from January to December 2012 were identified. Studies were included if they used animal experimental model(s) and involved a treatment intervention. Data were extracted regarding disease type, animal model, intervention type and funding. Each study was assessed for quality of reporting, using the ARRIVE guidelines as a checklist. RESULTS: Forty-one studies (15 ARD, 26 A&R) were analyzed. Ethics approval was not reported or unclear in 22%. Randomization was not reported or unclear in 82.9% of the papers. Only 19.5% and 9.8% of papers reported attrition rate and important adverse events, respectively. Sample size calculation or allocation method was not reported in any paper. Only one study published negative results. CONCLUSION: A number of key study design principles are poorly reported in experimental animal research investigating potential treatments in rheumatology. We support the widespread implementation of the ARRIVE guidelines in the rheumatology literature to promote the publication of manuscripts that allow rigorous appraisal of scientific quality.
Authors: Robert Fahed; Jean Raymond; Célina Ducroux; Jean-Christophe Gentric; Igor Salazkin; Daniela Ziegler; Guylaine Gevry; Tim E Darsaut Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Jilma Alemán-Laporte; Gilbert Alvarado; Mariana Sa Garcia-Gomes; Ana Tada Fonseca Brasil Antiorio; Marco Zúñiga-Montero; Claudia Madalena Cabrera Mori Journal: Animals (Basel) Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 2.752
Authors: Silvia Fernández-Martín; Mónica López-Peña; Fernando Muñoz; María Permuy; Antonio González-Cantalapiedra Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Marcelo M Canaan; Juliana C Reis-Canaan; Márcio G Zangerônimo; Eric F Andrade; Thais M S V Gonçalves; Michel C A Pereira; Renato R Lima; Vanessa Pardi; Ramiro M Murata; Luciano J Pereira Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 5.717