Experiences of early career researchers: Influences on the design and reporting of animal experiments, and the practical and emotional support needed to enhance best practice methods

While best practice methodology in animal research aims to address reproducibility and translational issues, awareness and implementation remains low. Preclinical systematic reviews have highlighted many flaws, including issues with internal validity and reporting. With early career researchers (ECRs) heavily involved in all aspects of animal experiments, it is crucial we understand what shapes their research practices. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 ECRs, including research masters, PhD and postdoctoral academics. Data were collected and analysed concurrently using constant comparison techniques and an iterative approach. Findings revealed low-level awareness of best practice recommendations but a desire to engage in dedicated workshops on designing and reporting animal experiments. Current laboratory practices and previous literature were main influences on research practice, more than institutional training. An unexpected finding was the discovery of ethical and emotional dilemmas ECRs faced when working with animals. This highlights the need for a multifaceted approach to better support junior researchers, both emotionally and practically, to encourage responsible science.

Value of preclinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric research

Similar to systematic reviews (SRs) in clinical fields, preclinical SRs address a specific research area, furnishing information on current knowledge, possible gaps, and potential methodological flaws of study design, conduct, and report. One of the main goals of preclinical SRs is to identify aspiring treatment strategies and evaluate if currently available data is solid enough to translate to clinical trials or highlight the gaps, thus justifying the need for new studies. It is imperative to rigorously follow the methodological standards that are widely available. These include registration of the protocol and adherence to guidelines for assessing the risk of bias, study quality, and certainty of evidence. A special consideration should be made for pediatric SRs, clinical and preclinical, due to the unique characteristics of this age group. These include rationale for intervention and comparison of primary and secondary outcomes. Outcomes measured should acknowledge age-related physiological changes and maturational processes of different organ systems. It is crucial to choose the age of the animals appropriately and its possible correspondence for specific pediatric age groups. The findings of well-conducted SRs of preclinical studies have the potential to provide a reliable evidence synthesis to guide the design of future preclinical and clinical studies. IMPACT: This narrative review highlights the importance of rigorous design, conduct and reporting of preclinical primary studies and systematic reviews. A special consideration should be made for pediatric systematic reviews of preclinical studies, due to the unique characteristics of this age group.

Assessing the application of barbed sutures in comparison to conventional sutures for surgical applications: a global systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical animal studies

BACKGROUND

Following an initiative published by Lancet in 2002 and an IDEAL-D framework, the value of preclinical animal studies has garnered increasing attention in recent research. Numerous preclinical animal experiments tried to generate evidence to guide the development of barbed sutures. However, discernible drawbacks and incongruities in outcomes have emerged between clinical and preclinical animal studies. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to review the preclinical animal experiments comparing barbed sutures with conventional sutures. The authors hope to facilitate clinical translation of barbed sutures by evaluating effectiveness, safety, and physical properties/reliability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted to identify controlled preclinical animal experiments comparing barbed sutures with conventional sutures. The risk of bias was assessed using SYRCLE. GRADE approach was used to evaluate evidence quality. Revman was applied to analyze all the data. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 62 articles were eligible with low to moderate quality, including 2158 samples from 10 different animal species across 27 surgical procedures. Barbed suture exhibited a significant reduction in suture time, limited change in Cross-Sectional Area (CSA), and decreased instances of tissue disruption (all P <0.05). Subgroup analyses, considering both clinical and research significance, indicated that barbed sutures might cause more specific adverse events and demonstrate suboptimal performance of physical properties/reliability. Meta-regression suggested that heterogeneity resulted from variations in studies and animal models.

CONCLUSION

Although barbed suture demonstrated superiority in numerous surgeries for time efficiency, its safety and physical properties/reliability might be influenced by diverse preclinical models, sutures' brand, surgeries, and anatomical sites. Further evaluation, based on standardized and well-designed animal experiments, is essential for medical device development and applications in human beings.

It's Time to Review the Three Rs, to Make them More Fit for Purpose in the 21st Century

The Three Rs have become widely accepted and pursued, and are now the go-to framework that encourages the humane use of animals in science, where no other option is believed to exist. However, many people, including scientists, harbour varying degrees of concern about the value and impact of the Three Rs. This ranges from a continued adherence to the Three Rs principles in the belief that they have performed well, through a belief that there should be more emphasis (or indeed a sole focus) on replacement, to a view that the principles have hindered, rather than helped, a critical approach to animal research that should have resulted in replacement to a much greater extent. This critical review asks questions of the Three Rs and their implementation, and provides an overview of the current situation surrounding animal use in biomedical science (chiefly in research). It makes a case that it is time to move away from the Three Rs and that, while this happens, the principles need to be made more robust and enforced more efficiently. To expedite a shift from animal use in science, toward a much greater and quicker adoption of human-specific New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), some argue for a straightforward focus on the best available science.

Mitigating animal methods bias to reduce animal use and improve biomedical translation

Nonanimal biomedical research methods have advanced rapidly over the last decade making them the first-choice model for many researchers due to improved translatability and avoidance of ethical concerns. Yet confidence in novel nonanimal methods is still being established and they remain a small portion of nonclinical biomedical research, which can lead peer reviewers to evaluate animal-free studies or grant proposals in a biased manner. This "animal methods bias" is the preference for animal-based research methods where they are not necessary or where nonanimal-based methods are suitable. It affects the fair consideration of animal-free biomedical research, hampering the uptake and dissemination of these approaches by putting pressure on researchers to conduct animal experiments and potentially perpetuating the use of poorly translatable model systems. An international team of researchers and advocates called the Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias (COLAAB) aims to provide concrete evidence of the existence and consequences of this bias and to develop and implement solutions towards overcoming it. The COLAAB recently developed the first of several mitigation tools: the Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing, which is described herein along with broader implications and future directions of this work.

Advancing the 3Rs: innovation, implementation, ethics and society

The 3Rs principle of replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in science has been gaining widespread support in the international research community and appears in transnational legislation such as the European Directive 2010/63/EU, a number of national legislative frameworks like in Switzerland and the UK, and other rules and guidance in place in countries around the world. At the same time, progress in technical and biomedical research, along with the changing status of animals in many societies, challenges the view of the 3Rs principle as a sufficient and effective approach to the moral challenges set by animal use in research. Given this growing awareness of our moral responsibilities to animals, the aim of this paper is to address the question: Can the 3Rs, as a policy instrument for science and research, still guide the morally acceptable use of animals for scientific purposes, and if so, how? The fact that the increased availability of alternatives to animal models has not correlated inversely with a decrease in the number of animals used in research has led to public and political calls for more radical action. However, a focus on the simple measure of total animal numbers distracts from the need for a more nuanced understanding of how the 3Rs principle can have a genuine influence as a guiding instrument in research and testing. Hence, we focus on three core dimensions of the 3Rs in contemporary research: (1) What scientific innovations are needed to advance the goals of the 3Rs? (2) What can be done to facilitate the implementation of existing and new 3R methods? (3) Do the 3Rs still offer an adequate ethical framework given the increasing social awareness of animal needs and human moral responsibilities? By answering these questions, we will identify core perspectives in the debate over the advancement of the 3Rs.