Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature

Efficacy of Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Extracellular Vesicles in the Animal Model of Female Reproductive Diseases: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Female reproductive disorders, such as premature ovarian insufficiency (POI), intrauterine adhesion (IUA) or thin endometrium, and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), are the main factors affecting fertility. Mesenchymal stem cells derived-extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) have gained traction as a new potential treatment and were widely studied in these diseases. However, their impact is still not fully clear.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, the Chinese National Knowledge of Infrastructure, and WanFang online databases was performed up to September 27th, 2022, and the studies of MSC-EVs-based therapy on the animal models of female reproductive diseases were included. The primary outcomes were anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in POI and endometrial thickness in IUA, respectively.

RESULTS

28 studies (POI, N = 15; IUA, N = 13) were included. For POI, MSC-EVs improved AMH at 2 weeks (SMD 3.40, 95% CI 2.02 to 4.77) and 4 weeks (SMD 5.39, 95% CI 3.43 to 7.36) compared with placebo, and no difference was found when compared with MSCs in AMH (SMD -2.03, 95% CI -4.25 to 0.18). For IUA, MSC-EVs treatment could increase the endometrial thickness at 2 weeks (WMD 132.36, 95% CI 118.99 to 145.74), but no improvement was found at 4 weeks (WMD 166.18, 95% CI -21.44 to 353.79). The combination of MSC-EVs with hyaluronic acid or collagen had a better effect on the endometrial thickness (WMD 105.31, 95% CI 85.49 to 125.13) and glands (WMD 8.74, 95% CI 1.34 to 16.15) than MSC-EVs alone. The medium dose of EVs may allow for great benefits in both POI and IUA.

CONCLUSIONS

MSC-EVs treatment could improve the functional and structural outcomes in female reproductive disorders. The combination of MSC-EVs with HA or collagen may enhance the effect. These findings can accelerate the translation of MSC-EVs treatment to human clinical trials.

Identifying barriers and enablers to rigorous conduct and reporting of preclinical laboratory studies

Use of rigorous study design methods and transparent reporting in publications are 2 key strategies proposed to improve the reproducibility of preclinical research. Despite promotion of these practices by funders and journals, assessments suggest uptake is low in preclinical research. Thirty preclinical scientists were interviewed to better understand barriers and enablers to rigorous design and reporting. The interview guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, which is a framework used to understand determinants of current and desired behavior. Four global themes were identified; 2 reflecting enablers and 2 reflecting barriers. We found that basic scientists are highly motivated to apply the methods of rigorous design and reporting and perceive a number of benefits to their adoption (e.g., improved quality and reliability). However, there was varied awareness of the guidelines and in implementation of these practices. Researchers also noted that these guidelines can result in disadvantages, such as increased sample sizes, expenses, time, and can require several personnel to operationalize. Most researchers expressed additional resources such as personnel and education/training would better enable the application of some methods. Using existing guidance (Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW); Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project implementation strategies), we mapped and coded our interview findings to identify potential interventions, policies, and implementation strategies to improve routine use of the guidelines by preclinical scientists. These findings will help inform specific strategies that may guide the development of programs and resources to improve experimental design and transparent reporting in preclinical research.

A methodological review with meta-epidemiological analysis of preclinical systematic reviews with meta-analyses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been proposed as an approach to synthesize the literature and counteract the lack of power of small preclinical studies. We aimed to evaluate (1) the methodology of these reviews, (2) the methodological quality of the studies they included and (3) whether study methodological characteristics affect effect size. We searched MEDLINE to retrieve 212 systematic reviews with meta-analyses of preclinical studies published from January, 2018 to March, 2020. Less than 15% explored the grey literature. Selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate in less than two thirds of reviews. Most of them assessed the methodological quality of included studies and reported the meta-analysis model. The risk of bias of included studies was mostly rated unclear. In meta-epidemiological analysis, none of the study methodological characteristics was associated with effect size. The methodological characteristics of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of recently published preclinical studies seem to have improved as compared with previous assessments, but the methodological quality of included studies remains poor, thus limiting the validity of their results. Our meta-epidemiological analysis did not show any evidence of a potential association between methodological characteristics of included studies and effect size.

Mesenchymal stromal cell extracellular vesicles as therapy for acute and chronic respiratory diseases: A meta-analysis

Preclinical studies suggest mesenchymal stromal cell extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) reduce inflammation and improve organ function in lung diseases; however, an objective analysis of all available data is needed prior to translation. Using rigorous meta-research methods, we determined the effectiveness of MSC-EVs for preclinical respiratory diseases and identified experimental conditions that may further refine this therapy. A systematic search of MEDLINE/Embase identified 1167 records. After screening, 52 articles were included for data extraction and evaluated for risk of bias and quality of reporting in study design. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted for acute lung injury (ALI; N = 23), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD; N = 8) and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH; N = 7). Subgroup analyses identified EV methods/characteristics that may be associated with improved efficacy. Data is presented as standardized mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For ALI, MSC-EVs markedly reduced lung injury (SMD -4.33, CI -5.73 to -2.92), vascular permeability (SMD -2.43, CI -3.05 to -1.82), and mortality (RR 0.39, CI 0.22 to 0.68). Small EVs were more consistently effective than large EVs whereas no differences were observed between tissue sources, immunocompatibility or isolation techniques. For BPD, alveolarization was improved by MSC-EVs (SMD -1.45, CI -2.08 to -0.82) with small EVs more consistently beneficial then small/large EVs. In PAH, right ventricular systolic pressure (SMD -4.16, CI -5.68 to -2.64) and hypertrophy (SMD -2.80, CI -3.68 to -1.91) were significantly attenuated by EVs. In BPD and PAH, EVs isolated by ultracentrifugation demonstrated therapeutic benefit whereas tangential flow filtration (N = 2) displayed minimal efficacy. Lastly, risk of bias and quality of reporting for experimental design were consistently unclear across all studies. Our findings demonstrate clear potential of MSC-EVs to be developed as therapy for acute and chronic lung diseases. However, greater transparency in research design and direct comparisons of isolation technique and EV subtypes are needed to generate robust evidence to guide clinical translation. Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020145334.

Neuroprotection by Remote Ischemic Conditioning in Rodent Models of Focal Ischemia: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) is a promising neuroprotective therapy for ischemic stroke. Preclinical studies investigating RIC have shown RIC reduced infarct volume, but clinical trials have been equivocal. Therefore, the efficacy of RIC in reducing infarct volume and quality of current literature needs to be evaluated to identify knowledge gaps to support future clinical trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical literature involving RIC in rodent models of focal ischemia. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019145441). Eligibility criteria included rat or mice models of focal ischemia that received RIC to a limb either before, during, or after stroke. MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from 1946 to August 2019. Risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE risk of bias tool along with construct validity. Seventy-two studies were included in the systematic review. RIC was shown to reduce infarct volume (SMD - 2.19; CI - 2.48 to - 1.91) when compared to stroke-only controls and no adverse events were reported with regard to RIC. Remote ischemic conditioning was shown to be most efficacious in males (SMD - 2.26; CI - 2.58 to - 1.94) and when delivered poststroke (SMD - 1.34; CI - 1.95 to - 0.73). A high risk of bias was present; thus, measures of efficacy may be exaggerated. A limitation is the poor methodological reporting of many studies, resulting in unclear construct validity. We identified several important, but under investigated topics including the efficacy of RIC in different stroke models, varied infarct sizes and location, and potential sex differences.

Perioperative Neurocognitive Disorder: State of the Preclinical Science

The purpose of this article is to provide a succinct summary of the different experimental approaches that have been used in preclinical postoperative cognitive dysfunction research, and an overview of the knowledge that has accrued. This is not intended to be a comprehensive review, but rather is intended to highlight how the many different approaches have contributed to our understanding of postoperative cognitive dysfunction, and to identify knowledge gaps to be filled by further research. The authors have organized this report by the level of experimental and systems complexity, starting with molecular and cellular approaches, then moving to intact invertebrates and vertebrate animal models. In addition, the authors' goal is to improve the quality and consistency of postoperative cognitive dysfunction and perioperative neurocognitive disorder research by promoting optimal study design, enhanced transparency, and "best practices" in experimental design and reporting to increase the likelihood of corroborating results. Thus, the authors conclude with general guidelines for designing, conducting and reporting perioperative neurocognitive disorder rodent research.

Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature

Poor reporting quality may contribute to irreproducibility of results and failed 'bench-to-bedside' translation. Consequently, guidelines have been developed to improve the complete and transparent reporting of in vivo preclinical studies. To examine the impact of such guidelines on core methodological and analytical reporting items in the preclinical anesthesiology literature, we sampled a cohort of studies. Preclinical in vivo studies published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anaesthesia, and the British Journal of Anaesthesia (2008-2009, 2014-2016) were identified. Data was extracted independently and in duplicate. Reporting completeness was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research. Risk ratios were used for comparative analyses. Of 7615 screened articles, 604 met our inclusion criteria and included experiments reporting on 52 490 animals. The most common topic of investigation was pain and analgesia (30%), rodents were most frequently used (77%), and studies were most commonly conducted in the United States (36%). Use of preclinical reporting guidelines was listed in 10% of applicable articles. A minority of studies fully reported on replicates (0.3%), randomization (10%), blinding (12%), sample-size estimation (3%), and inclusion/exclusion criteria (5%). Statistics were well reported (81%). Comparative analysis demonstrated few differences in reporting rigor between journals, including those that endorsed reporting guidelines. Principal items of study design were infrequently reported, with few differences between journals. Methods to improve implementation and adherence to community-based reporting guidelines may be necessary to increase transparent and consistent reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.