Literature DB >> 36264974

'Invisible actors'-How poor methodology reporting compromises mouse models of oncology: A cross-sectional survey.

Elizabeth A Nunamaker1, Penny S Reynolds2.   

Abstract

The laboratory mouse is a key player in preclinical oncology research. However, emphasis of techniques reporting at the expense of critical animal-related detail compromises research integrity, animal welfare, and, ultimately, the translation potential of mouse-based oncology models. To evaluate current reporting practices, we performed a cross-sectional survey of 400 preclinical oncology studies using mouse solid-tumour models. Articles published in 2020 were selected from 20 journals that specifically endorsed the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) preclinical reporting guidelines. We assessed reporting compliance for 22 items in five domains: ethical oversight assurance, animal signalment, husbandry, welfare, and euthanasia. Data were analysed using hierarchical generalised random-intercept models, clustered on journal. Overall, reporting of animal-related items was poor. Median compliance over all categories was 23%. There was little or no association between extent of reporting compliance and journal or journal impact factor. Age, sex, and source were reported most frequently, but verifiable strain information was reported for <10% of studies. Animal husbandry, housing environment, and welfare items were reported by <5% of studies. Fewer than one in four studies reported analgesia use, humane endpoints, or an identifiable method of euthanasia. Of concern was the poor documentation of ethical oversight information. Fewer than one in four provided verifiable approval information, and almost one in ten reported no information, or information that was demonstrably false. Mice are the "invisible actors" in preclinical oncology research. In spite of widespread endorsement of reporting guidelines, adherence to reporting guidelines on the part of authors is poor and journals fail to enforce guideline reporting standards. In particular, the inadequate reporting of key animal-related items severely restricts the utility and translation potential of mouse models, and results in research waste. Both investigators and journals have the ethical responsibility to ensure animals are not wasted in uninformative research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36264974      PMCID: PMC9584398          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274738

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.752


  84 in total

1.  Assessing the exploratory and anxiety-related behaviors of mice. Do different caging systems affect the outcome of behavioral tests?

Authors:  Alexia Polissidis; Sofia Zelelak; Maria Nikita; Pavlos Alexakos; Marianna Stasinopoulou; Zacharias-Ioannis Kakazanis; Nikolaos Kostomitsopoulos
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2017-04-13

2.  Inhibitory effect of cold stress against acetaminophen-induced hepatic injury in B6C3F1 and ICR mice.

Authors:  H Yamamoto; K Fujii; T Hayakawa
Journal:  Toxicol Lett       Date:  1995-11-15       Impact factor: 4.372

3.  Intermittent calorie restriction delays prostate tumor detection and increases survival time in TRAMP mice.

Authors:  Melissa J L Bonorden; Olga P Rogozina; Christina M Kluczny; Michael E Grossmann; Patricia L Grambsch; Joseph P Grande; Susan Perkins; Anna Lokshin; Margot P Cleary
Journal:  Nutr Cancer       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.900

4.  Physical activity and environmental enrichment: Behavioural effects of exposure to different housing conditions in mice.

Authors:  Raisa Rabadán; Marta Ramos-Campos; Rosa Redolat; Patricia Mesa-Gresa
Journal:  Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars)       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 1.579

5.  Impact of anesthesia and euthanasia on metabolomics of mammalian tissues: studies in a C57BL/6J mouse model.

Authors:  Katherine A Overmyer; Chanisa Thonusin; Nathan R Qi; Charles F Burant; Charles R Evans
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Pain and Laboratory Animals: Publication Practices for Better Data Reproducibility and Better Animal Welfare.

Authors:  Larry Carbone; Jamie Austin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency.

Authors:  Mai T Pham; Andrijana Rajić; Judy D Greig; Jan M Sargeant; Andrew Papadopoulos; Scott A McEwen
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 5.273

8.  ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesia.

Authors:  Vivian Leung; Frédérik Rousseau-Blass; Guy Beauchamp; Daniel S J Pang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Effect of three different forms of handling on the variation of aggression-associated parameters in individually and group-housed male C57BL/6NCrl mice.

Authors:  Sinja Mertens; Miriam A Vogt; Peter Gass; Rupert Palme; Bernhard Hiebl; Sabine Chourbaji
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-12       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Tumor volume in subcutaneous mouse xenografts measured by microCT is more accurate and reproducible than determined by 18F-FDG-microPET or external caliper.

Authors:  Mette Munk Jensen; Jesper Tranekjaer Jørgensen; Tina Binderup; Andreas Kjaer
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 1.930

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.