The methodological quality of animal research in critical care: the public face of science
| Autor: | Ari R. Joffe, Meredith Bara |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
business.industry Research media_common.quotation_subject Methodology Alternative medicine Face (sociological concept) Animal research Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine Critical care Nursing Intensive care Anesthesiology Family medicine medicine Quality (business) business Methodological quality media_common |
| Zdroj: | Annals of Intensive Care |
| ISSN: | 2110-5820 |
| DOI: | 10.1186/s13613-014-0026-8 |
| Popis: | Background Animal research (AR) findings often do not translate to humans; one potential reason is the poor methodological quality of AR. We aimed to determine this quality of AR reported in critical care journals. Methods All AR published from January to June 2012 in three high-impact critical care journals were reviewed. A case report form and instruction manual with clear definitions were created, based on published recommendations, including the ARRIVE guidelines. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results Seventy-seven AR publications were reviewed. Our primary outcome (animal strain, sex, and weight or age described) was reported in 52 (68%; 95% confidence interval, 56% to 77%). Of the 77 publications, 47 (61%) reported randomization; of these, 3 (6%) reported allocation concealment, and 1 (2%) the randomization procedure. Of the 77 publications, 31 (40%) reported some type of blinding; of these, disease induction (2, 7%), intervention (7, 23%), and/or subjective outcomes (17, 55%) were blinded. A sample size calculation was reported in 4/77 (5%). Animal numbers were missing in the Methods section in 16 (21%) publications; when stated, the median was 32 (range 6 to 320; interquartile range, 21 to 70). Extra animals used were mentioned in the Results section in 31 (40%) publications; this number was unclear in 23 (74%), and >100 for 12 (16%). When reporting most outcomes, numbers with denominators were given in 35 (45%), with no unaccounted numbers in 24 (31%), and no animals excluded from analysis in 20 (26%). Most (49, 64%) studies reported >40, and another 19 (25%) reported 21 to 40 statistical comparisons. Internal validity limitations were discussed in 7 (9%), and external validity (to humans) discussed in 71 (92%), most with no (30, 42%) or only a vague (9, 13%) limitation to this external validity mentioned. Conclusions The reported methodological quality of AR was poor. Unless the quality of AR significantly improves, the practice may be in serious jeopardy of losing public support. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|