Preclinical Research Reporting in Shock: Room for Improvement

Twelve years after the ARRIVE guidelines: Animal research has not yet arrived at high standards

The reproducibility crisis across animal studies jeopardizes the credibility of the main findings derived from animal research, even though these findings are critical for informing human studies. To clarify and improve transparency among animal studies, the ARRIVE reporting guidelines were first announced in 2010 and upgraded to version 2.0 in 2020. However, compliance with and awareness of those reporting guidelines has remained suboptimal. Journal editors should encourage the authors to adhere to those guidelines. Authors, editors, referees, and reviewers should be aware of the ARRIVE guideline 2.0 when assessing and evaluating the methodology and findings of animal studies. However, we should also question whether reporting guidelines alone can change a research culture and improve the reproducibility of animal investigations. Reported research may not reflect actual research. Large segments of animal research efforts are wasted because of poor design choices and because of non-publication rather than suboptimal reporting. Better training of the scientific workforce, interventions at improving animal research at the design stage, registration practices, and alignment of the reward system with the publication of rigorous animal research may achieve more than reporting guidelines alone.

A systematic assessment of preclinical multilaboratory studies and a comparison to single laboratory studies

Background

Multicentric approaches are widely used in clinical trials to assess the generalizability of findings, however, they are novel in laboratory-based experimentation. It is unclear how multilaboratory studies may differ in conduct and results from single lab studies. Here, we synthesized the characteristics of these studies and quantitatively compared their outcomes to those generated by single laboratory studies.

Methods

MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched. Screening and data extractions were completed in duplicate by independent reviewers. Multilaboratory studies investigating interventions using in vivo animal models were included. Study characteristics were extracted. Systematic searches were then performed to identify single lab studies matched by intervention and disease. Difference in standardized mean differences (DSMD) was then calculated across studies to assess differences in effect estimates based on study design (>0 indicates larger effects in single lab studies).

Results

Sixteen multilaboratory studies met inclusion criteria and were matched to 100 single lab studies. The multicenter study design was applied across a diverse range of diseases, including stroke, traumatic brain injury, myocardial infarction, and diabetes. The median number of centers was four (range 2-6) and the median sample size was 111 (range 23-384) with rodents most frequently used. Multilaboratory studies adhered to practices that reduce the risk of bias significantly more often than single lab studies. Multilaboratory studies also demonstrated significantly smaller effect sizes than single lab studies (DSMD 0.72 [95% confidence interval 0.43-1]).

Conclusions

Multilaboratory studies demonstrate trends that have been well recognized in clinical research (i.e. smaller treatment effects with multicentric evaluation and greater rigor in study design). This approach may provide a method to robustly assess interventions and the generalizability of findings between laboratories.

Funding

uOttawa Junior Clinical Research Chair; The Ottawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds Association; Canadian Anesthesia Research Foundation; Government of Ontario Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship in Science and Technology.

What Kinds of Dogs Are Used in Clinical and Experimental Research?

Simple Summary

The objective of this study was to evaluate the signalment of dogs used in veterinary research in six different specialties. In total, 150 randomly chosen clinical studies (25 studies per specialty) published between 2007 and 2019 were evaluated for the breed, sex, neuter status, age, and weight information of the dogs used. Breed information was given for 5.7% of the included animals. Beagles were used 1.9% of the time, which was a less significant role in research than we expected. Information about the sex of the dogs was lacking for 16.2% of the included animals, while age and weight information were missing for 22.7 and 32.7%, respectively. The neuter status was not given in 38.7% of the clinical studies. The results show deficits in the reporting of demographic data for the dogs. The need for an improvement in the documentation and/or reporting of animal signalment is obvious and should be addressed by authors, reviewers, and journal editors in the future.

Abstract

Background: Dogs are widely used in research to answer questions about canine or human conditions. For the latter, research dogs are often used as models, since they are physiologically more similar to humans than other species used in research and they share similar environmental conditions. From a veterinary perspective, research findings are widely based on academic research, and thus are generated under experimental conditions. In that regard, the question arises: do the dogs used for research adequately represent the dog population seen in veterinary practice? It may, for example, be assumed that Beagle dogs are often used as experimental animals. The objective of this study was to evaluate the signalment of dogs used in veterinary research. Furthermore, we aimed to assess other relevant criteria regarding the validity of clinical trials in the context of six different veterinary medicine specialties: cardiology, internal medicine, neurology, orthopaedics, reproduction, and surgery. Methods: A literature search was conducted and 25 studies per specialty were randomly selected. The breed, sex, neuter status, median age, and median weight of the dogs used for clinical studies (n = 150) published between 2007 and 2019 were evaluated. Results: In total, 596,542 dogs were used in the 150 trials. Breed information was given for 33,835 of these dogs (5.7%). Of the latter, 1.9% were Beagles. Nine clinical trials exclusively used Beagles. The most frequently used breeds were German Shepherds (7.3%), Labrador Retrievers (6.7%), and Golden Retrievers (4.7%). The major reporting deficits found were missing breed specification in 25.3% of the articles; missing information about the sex of the dogs in 16.2%; missing age and weight information in 22.7 and 32.7%, respectively; and missing neuter status in 38.7% of the clinical studies. The median sample size was 56 (Q1:29; Q3:365) dogs. Conclusions: The presented project revealed that Beagle dogs represent only a small proportion of dogs in veterinary research. Based on the evaluated publications, it seems that some relevant dog attributes differ between the specialties. The results, however, show deficits in the reporting of demographic data for the dogs. The need for an improvement in the documentation and/or reporting of animal signalment is obvious and should be addressed by authors, reviewers, and journal editors in the future.