The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Inadequate awareness of adherence to ARRIVE guidelines, regarding reporting quality of hernia models repaired with meshes: a systematic review

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.

Optimal concentration of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid as an irrigation solution additive to reduce infection rates in rat models of contaminated wound

AIMS

In wound irrigation, 1 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is more efficacious than normal saline (NS) in removing bacteria from a contaminated wound. However, the optimal EDTA concentration remains unknown for different animal wound models.

METHODS

The cell toxicity of different concentrations of EDTA dissolved in NS (EDTA-NS) was assessed by Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8). Various concentrations of EDTA-NS irrigation solution were compared in three female Sprague-Dawley rat models: 1) a skin defect; 2) a bone exposed; and 3) a wound with an intra-articular implant. All three models were contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus or Escherichia coli. EDTA was dissolved at a concentration of 0 (as control), 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 50, and 100 mM in sterile NS. Samples were collected from the wounds and cultured. The bacterial culture-positive rate (colony formation) and infection rate (pus formation) of each treatment group were compared after irrigation and debridement.

RESULTS

Cell viability intervened below 10 mM concentrations of EDTA-NS showed no cytotoxicity. Concentrations of 1, 2, and 5 mM EDTA-NS had lower rates of infection and positive cultures for S. aureus and E. coli compared with other concentrations in the skin defect model. For the bone exposed model, 0.5, 1, and 2 mM EDTA-NS had lower rates of infection and positive cultures. For intra-articular implant models 10 and 50 mM, EDTA-NS had the lowest rates of infection and positive cultures.

CONCLUSION

The concentrations of EDTA-NS below 10 mM are safe for irrigation. The optimal concentration of EDTA-NS varies by type of wound after experimental inoculation of three types of wound. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(1):68-76.