Adherence to ARRIVE Guidelines in Chinese Journal Reports on Neoplasms in Animals

Background The Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines were published in 2010 with the aim of improving the quality of studies involving animals. However, how well Chinese studies involving animal neoplasms adhere to these guidelines has not been assessed. Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of such experiments published between 2010 and 2012 in Chinese journals with support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Methods We searched the Chinese Science Citation and Chinese Journal Full-Text Databases for articles published between 2010 and 2012 involving neoplasms in animals. The data were extracted into pre-prepared forms. Reporting quality was assessed using the ARRIVE checklist—39 items plus information on blinding. Results Three hundred and ninety-six animal studies were included in the analysis: 127 studies published in 2010, 140 studies published in 2011, and 129 studies published in 2012. The range of ARRIVE score is from 12 to 27 with a maximum possible score of 40. Studies published in 2012 (P = 0.012), 2011 (P = 0.015), 2010, July~Dec (P<0.017) had a significantly larger ARRIVE checklist score than those published in Jan.~June, 2010, respectively. Conclusions Experiments involving neoplasms in animals published in Chinese journals generally have not comprehensively reported the information recommended by the ARRIVE guidelines. We strongly recommend that researchers conducting such studies report this information.

[1]  L. Birke,et al.  Reporting animal use in scientific papers , 1997, Laboratory animals.

[2]  M. Ritskes-Hoitinga,et al.  A Gold Standard Publication Checklist to Improve the Quality of Animal Studies, to Fully Integrate the Three Rs, and to Make Systematic Reviews More Feasible , 2010, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[3]  A. Walker,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting in randomised controlled trials. , 2004, Journal of wound care.

[4]  M. Schulz,et al.  Systematic review of animal models for the study of implant integration, assessing the influence of material, surface and design. , 2012, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[5]  F. Schwarz,et al.  Quality assessment of reporting of animal studies on pathogenesis and treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. A systematic review using the ARRIVE guidelines. , 2012, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[6]  Matthias Egger,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[7]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals , 2009, PloS one.

[8]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  I. Abrahamsson,et al.  Quality of reporting of experimental research in implant dentistry. Critical aspects in design, outcome assessment and model validation. , 2012, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[10]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Reporting : The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research , 2010 .

[11]  T. Berglundh,et al.  Preclinical in vivo research in implant dentistry. Consensus of the eighth European workshop on periodontology. , 2012, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[12]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  David Moher,et al.  Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research , 2014, The Lancet.

[15]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[16]  M. Ritskes-Hoitinga,et al.  The Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) for improved design, reporting and scientific quality of animal studies GSPC versus ARRIVE guidelines , 2011, Laboratory animals.

[17]  I McCance,et al.  Assessment of statistical procedures used in papers in the Australian Veterinary Journal. , 1995, Australian veterinary journal.

[18]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[19]  Kennon Heard,et al.  Emergency medicine animal research: does use of randomization and blinding affect the results? , 2003, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[20]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. , 2007, Preventive medicine.

[21]  R. Jung,et al.  Systematic review of pre-clinical models assessing implant integration in locally compromised sites and/or systemically compromised animals. , 2012, Journal of clinical periodontology.