H Liu1,2, M J C A M Gielen3, J W A M Bosmans4,5, B Winkens6, N D Bouvy4,5. 1. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. h.liu@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. h.liu@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 3. Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Methodology and Statistics, CAPHRI, MUMC+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Research papers involving animal studies often display poor reporting standards, leading to lower study reproducibility. We aim to determine the difference in reporting animal studies regarding abdominal wall hernia repair with mesh placement, before and after the publication of ARRIVE-2010 (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. Furthermore, we aim to present the most up-to-date reporting quality using the updated ARRIVE-2020 as criteria. METHODS: All animal studies concerning hernia repair with meshes were systematically searched. Articles published in the 5 years leading up to the ARRIVE-2010 (pre-ARRIVE) and articles within the last 5 years until the updated ARRIVE 2.0 (post-ARRIVE) were compared for overall species and specific species separately. Articles published last year were evaluated for presenting fully reported (sub)items. RESULTS: The number of fully reported (sub)items per article was on average significantly higher for pre-ARRIVE than post-ARRIVE for overall species (mean (SD) = 14.0 (2.8) vs. 12.6 (2.5), P < 0.001). The same applies to rabbit (mean (SD) = 14.8 (2.6) vs. 12.6 (2.6), P = 0.001) and pig studies (mean (SD) = 14.5 (2.7) vs. 11.6 (2.6), P = 0.004), with no significance in rat studies (mean (SD) = 13.6 (2.9) vs. 12.9 (2.3), P = 0.076). Significance was found in several (sub)items between pre-ARRIVE and post-ARRIVE (n = 7, 3, 8, and 3 for overall species, rat, rabbit, and pig studies, respectively). CONCLUSION: General reporting quality of animal experiments has been improved markedly by ARRIVE guidelines. However, more improvements are required considering the arrival of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines.
PURPOSE: Research papers involving animal studies often display poor reporting standards, leading to lower study reproducibility. We aim to determine the difference in reporting animal studies regarding abdominal wall hernia repair with mesh placement, before and after the publication of ARRIVE-2010 (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. Furthermore, we aim to present the most up-to-date reporting quality using the updated ARRIVE-2020 as criteria. METHODS: All animal studies concerning hernia repair with meshes were systematically searched. Articles published in the 5 years leading up to the ARRIVE-2010 (pre-ARRIVE) and articles within the last 5 years until the updated ARRIVE 2.0 (post-ARRIVE) were compared for overall species and specific species separately. Articles published last year were evaluated for presenting fully reported (sub)items. RESULTS: The number of fully reported (sub)items per article was on average significantly higher for pre-ARRIVE than post-ARRIVE for overall species (mean (SD) = 14.0 (2.8) vs. 12.6 (2.5), P < 0.001). The same applies to rabbit (mean (SD) = 14.8 (2.6) vs. 12.6 (2.6), P = 0.001) and pig studies (mean (SD) = 14.5 (2.7) vs. 11.6 (2.6), P = 0.004), with no significance in rat studies (mean (SD) = 13.6 (2.9) vs. 12.9 (2.3), P = 0.076). Significance was found in several (sub)items between pre-ARRIVE and post-ARRIVE (n = 7, 3, 8, and 3 for overall species, rat, rabbit, and pig studies, respectively). CONCLUSION: General reporting quality of animal experiments has been improved markedly by ARRIVE guidelines. However, more improvements are required considering the arrival of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines.
Authors: Irlan Almeida Freires; Janaina de Cássia Orlandi Sardi; Ricardo Dias de Castro; Pedro Luiz Rosalen Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Story C Landis; Susan G Amara; Khusru Asadullah; Chris P Austin; Robi Blumenstein; Eileen W Bradley; Ronald G Crystal; Robert B Darnell; Robert J Ferrante; Howard Fillit; Robert Finkelstein; Marc Fisher; Howard E Gendelman; Robert M Golub; John L Goudreau; Robert A Gross; Amelie K Gubitz; Sharon E Hesterlee; David W Howells; John Huguenard; Katrina Kelner; Walter Koroshetz; Dimitri Krainc; Stanley E Lazic; Michael S Levine; Malcolm R Macleod; John M McCall; Richard T Moxley; Kalyani Narasimhan; Linda J Noble; Steve Perrin; John D Porter; Oswald Steward; Ellis Unger; Ursula Utz; Shai D Silberberg Journal: Nature Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: H Bart van der Worp; David W Howells; Emily S Sena; Michelle J Porritt; Sarah Rewell; Victoria O'Collins; Malcolm R Macleod Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Nathalie Percie du Sert; Viki Hurst; Amrita Ahluwalia; Sabina Alam; Marc T Avey; Monya Baker; William J Browne; Alejandra Clark; Innes C Cuthill; Ulrich Dirnagl; Michael Emerson; Paul Garner; Stephen T Holgate; David W Howells; Natasha A Karp; Stanley E Lazic; Katie Lidster; Catriona J MacCallum; Malcolm Macleod; Esther J Pearl; Ole H Petersen; Frances Rawle; Penny Reynolds; Kieron Rooney; Emily S Sena; Shai D Silberberg; Thomas Steckler; Hanno Würbel Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 8.029