1
|
Syed M, Martin H, Sena ES, Williamson PR, Al-Shahi Salman R. Selective outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials including participants with stroke or transient ischaemic attack: A systematic review. Eur Stroke J 2023; 8:923-931. [PMID: 37606096 PMCID: PMC10683727 DOI: 10.1177/23969873231194811] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2023] [Accepted: 07/22/2023] [Indexed: 08/23/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The prevalence of outcome reporting bias (ORB, i.e. selective reporting according to the results observed) across primary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including participants with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 3 February 2021 for reviews published 2008-2020 with at least one RCT of a therapeutic intervention, for participants with stroke or TIA, and a safety or efficacy outcome. We took a random sample of these RCTs and included those with a trial registry record or protocol published before reporting results. Two reviewers assessed discrepancies in outcome reporting across the trial registry record, protocol, statistical analysis plan, and publication for each RCT, using the classification system designed by the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials group. RESULTS Of 600 RCTs, we identified a trial registry record in 120 (20%), a protocol in 28 (5%), and a statistical analysis plan in 5 (1%) with 123 (21%) distinct RCTs being eligible for assessment: 110 (89%, 95% CI 83-94) were at no risk, 7 (6%, 95% CI 3-11) RCTs were at low risk, and 6 (5%, 95% CI 2-10) were at high risk of ORB. DISCUSSION The prevalence of ORB in primary outcomes was low in stroke/TIA RCTs that were included in Cochrane reviews and had an identifiable trial registry record or protocol. Concerningly, we were unable to identify a trial registry record or protocol in most of our sample. CONCLUSION Work is needed to further reduce ORB in stroke/TIA RCTs and explore the generalisability of these findings to RCTs outside of Cochrane reviews or without a registry record or protocol, as well as to secondary outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohshin Syed
- Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Helena Martin
- Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Paula R Williamson
- MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hair K, Bahor Z, Macleod M, Liao J, Sena ES. The Automated Systematic Search Deduplicator (ASySD): a rapid, open-source, interoperable tool to remove duplicate citations in biomedical systematic reviews. BMC Biol 2023; 21:189. [PMID: 37674179 PMCID: PMC10483700 DOI: 10.1186/s12915-023-01686-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2022] [Accepted: 08/21/2023] [Indexed: 09/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Researchers performing high-quality systematic reviews search across multiple databases to identify relevant evidence. However, the same publication is often retrieved from several databases. Identifying and removing such duplicates ("deduplication") can be extremely time-consuming, but failure to remove these citations can lead to the wrongful inclusion of duplicate data. Many existing tools are not sensitive enough, lack interoperability with other tools, are not freely accessible, or are difficult to use without programming knowledge. Here, we report the performance of our Automated Systematic Search Deduplicator (ASySD), a novel tool to perform automated deduplication of systematic searches for biomedical reviews. METHODS We evaluated ASySD's performance on 5 unseen biomedical systematic search datasets of various sizes (1845-79,880 citations). We compared the performance of ASySD with EndNote's automated deduplication option and with the Systematic Review Assistant Deduplication Module (SRA-DM). RESULTS ASySD identified more duplicates than either SRA-DM or EndNote, with a sensitivity in different datasets of 0.95 to 0.99. The false-positive rate was comparable to human performance, with a specificity of > 0.99. The tool took less than 1 h to identify and remove duplicates within each dataset. CONCLUSIONS For duplicate removal in biomedical systematic reviews, ASySD is a highly sensitive, reliable, and time-saving tool. It is open source and freely available online as both an R package and a user-friendly web application.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kaitlyn Hair
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
| | - Zsanett Bahor
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Malcolm Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Jing Liao
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Siafis S, McCutcheon R, Chiocchia V, Ostinelli EG, Wright S, Stansfield C, Juma DO, Mantas I, Howes OD, Rutigliano G, Ramage F, Tinsdeall F, Friedrich C, Milligan L, Moreno C, Elliott JH, Thomas J, Macleod MR, Sena ES, Seedat S, Salanti G, Potts J, Cipriani A, Leucht S. Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonists for psychosis: protocol for a living systematic review and meta-analysis of human and non-human studies. Wellcome Open Res 2023; 8:365. [PMID: 38634067 PMCID: PMC11021884 DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.19866.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/15/2023] [Indexed: 04/19/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is an urgent need to develop more effective and safer antipsychotics beyond dopamine 2 receptor antagonists. An emerging and promising approach is TAAR1 agonism. Therefore, we will conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize and triangulate the evidence from preclinical animal experiments and clinical studies on the efficacy, safety, and underlying mechanism of action of TAAR1 agonism for psychosis. METHODS Independent searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases to identify clinical and animal experimental studies comparing TAAR1 agonists with licensed antipsychotics or other control conditions in individuals with psychosis or animal models for psychosis, respectively. The primary outcomes will be overall psychotic symptoms and their behavioural proxies in animals. Secondary outcomes will include side effects and neurobiological measures. Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction using predefined forms, and risk of bias assessment using suitable tools based on the study design. Ontologies will be developed to facilitate study identification and data extraction. Data from clinical and animal studies will be synthesized separately using random-effects meta-analysis if appropriate, or synthesis without meta-analysis. Study characteristics will be investigated as potential sources of heterogeneity. Confidence in the evidence for each outcome and source of evidence will be evaluated, considering the summary of the association, potential concerns regarding internal and external validity, and reporting biases. When multiple sources of evidence are available for an outcome, an overall conclusion will be drawn in a triangulation meeting involving a multidisciplinary team of experts. We plan trimonthly updates of the review, and any modifications in the protocol will be documented. The review will be co-produced by multiple stakeholders aiming to produce impactful and relevant results and bridge the gap between preclinical and clinical research on psychosis. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION PROSPERO-ID: CRD42023451628.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Spyridon Siafis
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Robert McCutcheon
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, UK
- Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England, UK
| | - Virginia Chiocchia
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Canton of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Edoardo G. Ostinelli
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
| | - Simonne Wright
- Department of Psychiatry, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa
| | - Claire Stansfield
- EPPI Centre, Social Research Institute, University College London, London, England, UK
| | | | - Ioannis Mantas
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Oliver D. Howes
- Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England, UK
| | - Grazia Rutigliano
- Institute of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, England, UK
| | - Fiona Ramage
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Francesca Tinsdeall
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Claire Friedrich
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
| | | | - Carmen Moreno
- Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, IiSGM, CIBERSAM, ISCIII, School of Medicine, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Community of Madrid, Spain
| | - Julian H. Elliott
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- Future Evidence Foundation, Melbourne, Australia
| | - James Thomas
- EPPI Centre, Social Research Institute, University College London, London, England, UK
| | - Malcolm R. Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Soraya Seedat
- Department of Psychiatry, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa
| | - Georgia Salanti
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Canton of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Jennifer Potts
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
| | - Andrea Cipriani
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
| | - Stefan Leucht
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - the GALENOS team
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, UK
- Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England, UK
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Canton of Bern, Switzerland
- Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Department of Psychiatry, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa
- EPPI Centre, Social Research Institute, University College London, London, England, UK
- My Mind Our Humanity, Mombasa, Kenya
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Institute of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, England, UK
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
- MQ Mental Health Research, London, UK
- Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, IiSGM, CIBERSAM, ISCIII, School of Medicine, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Community of Madrid, Spain
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- Future Evidence Foundation, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Wilson E, Ramage FJ, Wever KE, Sena ES, Macleod MR, Currie GL. Designing, conducting, and reporting reproducible animal experiments. J Endocrinol 2023; 258:e220330. [PMID: 37074416 PMCID: PMC10304908 DOI: 10.1530/joe-22-0330] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2023] [Accepted: 04/19/2023] [Indexed: 04/20/2023]
Abstract
In biomedicine and many other fields, there are growing concerns around the reproducibility of research findings, with many researchers being unable to replicate their own or others' results. This raises important questions as to the validity and usefulness of much published research. In this review, we aim to engage researchers in the issue of research reproducibility and equip them with the necessary tools to increase the reproducibility of their research. We first highlight the causes and potential impact of non-reproducible research and emphasise the benefits of working reproducibly for the researcher and broader research community. We address specific targets for improvement and steps that individual researchers can take to increase the reproducibility of their work. We next provide recommendations for improving the design and conduct of experiments, focusing on in vivo animal experiments. We describe common sources of poor internal validity of experiments and offer practical guidance for limiting these potential sources of bias at different experimental stages, as well as discussing other important considerations during experimental design. We provide a list of key resources available to researchers to improve experimental design, conduct, and reporting. We then discuss the importance of open research practices such as study preregistration and the use of preprints and describe recommendations around data management and sharing. Our review emphasises the importance of reproducible work and aims to empower every individual researcher to contribute to the reproducibility of research in their field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma Wilson
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
- Simons Initiative for the Developing Brain, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Fiona J Ramage
- Department of Systems Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Kimberley E Wever
- Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Malcolm R Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Gillian L Currie
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zhang XY, Barakat A, Diaz-delCastillo M, Vollert J, Sena ES, Heegaard AM, Rice AS, Soliman N. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in which burrowing behaviour was assessed in rodent models of disease-associated persistent pain. Pain 2022; 163:2076-2102. [PMID: 35353780 PMCID: PMC9578533 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002632] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2021] [Revised: 02/24/2022] [Accepted: 02/28/2022] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
Abstract
ABSTRACT Burrowing behaviour is used to assess pain-associated behaviour in laboratory rodents. To gain insight into how models of disease-associated persistent pain and analgesics affect burrowing behaviour, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed burrowing behaviour. A systematic search in March 2020 and update in September 2020 was conducted in 4 databases. Study design characteristics and experimental data were extracted, followed by a random-effects meta-analysis. We explored the association between burrowing and monofilament-induced limb withdrawal. Dose response relationship was investigated for some analgesics. Forty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis, in which 16 model types and 14 drug classes were used. Most experiments used rat (79%) and male (72%) animals. Somatic inflammation and trauma-induced neuropathy models were associated with reduced burrowing behaviour. Analgesics (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and gabapentinoids) attenuated burrowing deficits in these models. Reporting of measures to reduce risk of bias was unclear except for randomisation which was high. There was not a correlation ( R2 = 0.1421) between burrowing and monofilament-induced limb withdrawal. Opioids, gabapentin, and naproxen showed reduced burrowing behaviour at high doses, whereas ibuprofen and celecoxib showed opposite trend. The findings indicate that burrowing could be used to assess pain-associated behaviour. We support the use of a portfolio of composite measures including spontaneous and stimulus-evoked tests. The information collected here could help in designing experiments involving burrowing assessment in models of disease-associated pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xue Ying Zhang
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ahmed Barakat
- Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt
| | - Marta Diaz-delCastillo
- Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Jan Vollert
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- Division of Neurological Pain Research and Therapy, Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Germany
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Germany
- Neurophysiology, Mannheim Centre of Translational Neuroscience (MCTN), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Germany
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Anne-Marie Heegaard
- Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Andrew S.C. Rice
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Nadia Soliman
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Zhang XY, Vollert J, Sena ES, Rice AS, Soliman N. A protocol for the systematic review and meta-analysis of thigmotactic behaviour in the open field test in rodent models associated with persistent pain. BMJ Open Sci 2022; 5:e100135. [PMID: 35047702 PMCID: PMC8647568 DOI: 10.1136/bmjos-2020-100135] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2020] [Revised: 11/30/2020] [Accepted: 12/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective Thigmotaxis is an innate predator avoidance behaviour of rodents and is enhanced when animals are under stress. It is characterised by the preference of a rodent to seek shelter, rather than expose itself to the aversive open area. The behaviour has been proposed to be a measurable construct that can address the impact of pain on rodent behaviour. This systematic review will assess whether thigmotaxis can be influenced by experimental persistent pain and attenuated by pharmacological interventions in rodents. Search strategy We will conduct search on three electronic databases to identify studies in which thigmotaxis was used as an outcome measure contextualised to a rodent model associated with persistent pain. All studies published until the date of the search will be considered. Screening and annotation Two independent reviewers will screen studies based on the order of (1) titles and abstracts, and (2) full texts. Data management and reporting For meta-analysis, we will extract thigmotactic behavioural data and calculate effect sizes. Effect sizes will be combined using a random-effects model. We will assess heterogeneity and identify sources of heterogeneity. A risk-of-bias assessment will be conducted to evaluate study quality. Publication bias will be assessed using funnel plots, Egger’s regression and trim-and-fill analysis. We will also extract stimulus-evoked limb withdrawal data to assess its correlation with thigmotaxis in the same animals. The evidence obtained will provide a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and limitations of using thigmotactic outcome measure in animal pain research so that future experimental designs can be optimised. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines and disseminate the review findings through publication and conference presentation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jan Vollert
- Musculoskeletal, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Emily S Sena
- Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | - Nadia Soliman
- Musculoskeletal, Imperial College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Time-to-event data is frequently reported in both clinical and preclinical research spheres. Systematic review and meta-analysis is a tool that can help to identify pitfalls in preclinical research conduct and reporting that can help to improve translational efficacy. However, pooling of studies using hazard ratios (HRs) is cumbersome especially in preclinical meta-analyses including large numbers of small studies. Median survival is a much simpler metric although because of some limitations, which may not apply to preclinical data, it is generally not used in survival meta-analysis. We aimed to appraise its performance when compared with hazard ratio-based meta-analysis when pooling large numbers of small, imprecise studies. METHODS We simulated a survival dataset with features representative of a typical preclinical survival meta-analysis, including with influence of a treatment and a number of covariates. We calculated individual patient data-based hazard ratios and median survival ratios (MSRs), comparing the summary statistics directly and their performance at random-effects meta-analysis. Finally, we compared their sensitivity to detect associations between treatment and influential covariates at meta-regression. RESULTS There was an imperfect correlation between MSR and HR, although the opposing direction of treatment effects between summary statistics appeared not to be a major issue. Precision was more conservative for HR than MSR, meaning that estimates of heterogeneity were lower. There was a slight sensitivity advantage for MSR at meta-analysis and meta-regression, although power was low in all circumstances. CONCLUSIONS We believe we have validated MSR as a summary statistic for use in a meta-analysis of small, imprecise experimental survival studies-helping to increase confidence and efficiency in future reviews in this area. While assessment of study precision and therefore weighting is less reliable, MSR appears to perform favourably during meta-analysis. Sensitivity of meta-regression was low for this set of parameters, so pooling of treatments to increase sample size may be required to ensure confidence in preclinical survival meta-regressions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Theodore C Hirst
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. .,Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK.
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Malcolm R Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Hunniford VT, Montroy J, Fergusson DA, Avey MT, Wever KE, McCann SK, Foster M, Fox G, Lafreniere M, Ghaly M, Mannell S, Godwinska K, Gentles A, Selim S, MacNeil J, Sikora L, Sena ES, Page MJ, Macleod M, Moher D, Lalu MM. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews. PLoS Biol 2021; 19:e3001177. [PMID: 33951050 PMCID: PMC8128274 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2020] [Revised: 05/17/2021] [Accepted: 03/05/2021] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
In an effort to better utilize published evidence obtained from animal experiments, systematic reviews of preclinical studies are increasingly more common-along with the methods and tools to appraise them (e.g., SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation [SYRCLE's] risk of bias tool). We performed a cross-sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews (2015-2018) and examined a range of epidemiological characteristics and used a 46-item checklist to assess reporting details. We identified 442 reviews published across 43 countries in 23 different disease domains that used 26 animal species. Reporting of key details to ensure transparency and reproducibility was inconsistent across reviews and within article sections. Items were most completely reported in the title, introduction, and results sections of the reviews, while least reported in the methods and discussion sections. Less than half of reviews reported that a risk of bias assessment for internal and external validity was undertaken, and none reported methods for evaluating construct validity. Our results demonstrate that a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent. Our study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria T. Hunniford
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Joshua Montroy
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Dean A. Fergusson
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | | | - Kimberley E. Wever
- SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Sarah K. McCann
- QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH) and Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Madison Foster
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Grace Fox
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mackenzie Lafreniere
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mira Ghaly
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sydney Mannell
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Karolina Godwinska
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Avonae Gentles
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Shehab Selim
- Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jenna MacNeil
- Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lindsey Sikora
- Health Sciences Library, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew J. Page
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Malcolm Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - David Moher
- Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Manoj M. Lalu
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Bahor Z, Liao J, Currie G, Ayder C, Macleod M, McCann SK, Bannach-Brown A, Wever K, Soliman N, Wang Q, Doran-Constant L, Young L, Sena ES, Sena C. Development and uptake of an online systematic review platform: the early years of the CAMARADES Systematic Review Facility (SyRF). BMJ Open Sci 2021; 5:e100103. [PMID: 35047698 PMCID: PMC8647599 DOI: 10.1136/bmjos-2020-100103] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2020] [Revised: 02/10/2021] [Accepted: 02/11/2021] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Preclinical research is a vital step in the drug discovery pipeline and more generally in helping to better understand human disease aetiology and its management. Systematic reviews (SRs) can be powerful in summarising and appraising this evidence concerning a specific research question, to highlight areas of improvements, areas for further research and areas where evidence may be sufficient to take forward to other research domains, for instance clinical trial. Guidance and tools for preclinical research synthesis remain limited despite their clear utility. We aimed to create an online end-to-end platform primarily for conducting SRs of preclinical studies, that was flexible enough to support a wide variety of experimental designs, was adaptable to different research questions, would allow users to adopt emerging automated tools and support them during their review process using best practice. In this article, we introduce the Systematic Review Facility (https://syrf.org.uk), which was launched in 2016 and designed to support primarily preclinical SRs from small independent projects to large, crowdsourced projects. We discuss the architecture of the app and its features, including the opportunity to collaborate easily, to efficiently manage projects, to screen and annotate studies for important features (metadata), to extract outcome data into a secure database, and tailor these steps to each project. We introduce how we are working to leverage the use of automation tools and allow the integration of these services to accelerate and automate steps in the systematic review workflow.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zsanett Bahor
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Jing Liao
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Gillian Currie
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Can Ayder
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Malcolm Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Sarah K McCann
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
- QUEST - Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany
| | - Alexandra Bannach-Brown
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
- QUEST - Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany
- Institute for Evidence-Based Practice, Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia
| | - Kimberley Wever
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department for Health Evidence, Nijmegen Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Qianying Wang
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | | | | | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Chris Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Kringe L, Sena ES, Motschall E, Bahor Z, Wang Q, Herrmann AM, Mülling C, Meckel S, Boltze J. Quality and validity of large animal experiments in stroke: A systematic review. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2020; 40:2152-2164. [PMID: 32576074 PMCID: PMC7585919 DOI: 10.1177/0271678x20931062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
An important factor for successful translational stroke research is study quality. Low-quality studies are at risk of biased results and effect overestimation, as has been intensely discussed for small animal stroke research. However, little is known about the methodological rigor and quality in large animal stroke models, which are becoming more frequently used in the field. Based on research in two databases, this systematic review surveys and analyses the methodological quality in large animal stroke research. Quality analysis was based on the Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable and the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments guidelines. Our analysis revealed that large animal models are utilized with similar shortcomings as small animal models. Moreover, translational benefits of large animal models may be limited due to lacking implementation of important quality criteria such as randomization, allocation concealment, and blinded assessment of outcome. On the other hand, an increase of study quality over time and a positive correlation between study quality and journal impact factor were identified. Based on the obtained findings, we derive recommendations for optimal study planning, conducting, and data analysis/reporting when using large animal stroke models to fully benefit from the translational advantages offered by these models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leona Kringe
- Department of Neuroradiology, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Institute of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Edith Motschall
- Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Zsanett Bahor
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Qianying Wang
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Andrea M Herrmann
- Department of Neuroradiology, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.,Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Institute of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Christoph Mülling
- Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Institute of Anatomy, Histology and Embryology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Stephan Meckel
- Department of Neuroradiology, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Johannes Boltze
- School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, Emerson M, Garner P, Holgate ST, Howells DW, Karp NA, Lazic SE, Lidster K, MacCallum CJ, Macleod M, Pearl EJ, Petersen OH, Rawle F, Reynolds P, Rooney K, Sena ES, Silberberg SD, Steckler T, Würbel H. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. J Physiol 2020; 598:3793-3801. [PMID: 32666574 PMCID: PMC7610696 DOI: 10.1113/jp280389] [Citation(s) in RCA: 159] [Impact Index Per Article: 39.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2020] [Accepted: 06/23/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the 'ARRIVE Essential 10,' which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the 'Recommended Set,' which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Viki Hurst
- Science Manager – Experimental Design and Reporting, NC3Rs, London, United Kingdom
| | - Amrita Ahluwalia
- Professor of Vascular Pharmacology, Co-Director, The William Harvey Research Institute, London, United Kingdom
- Director of the Barts Cardiovascular CTU, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sabina Alam
- Director of Publishing Ethics and Integrity, Taylor & Francis Group, London, United Kingdom
| | - Marc T. Avey
- Lead Health Scientist, Health Science Practice, ICF, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Monya Baker
- Senior Editor, Opinion, Nature, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - William J. Browne
- Professor of Statistics, School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Alejandra Clark
- Senior Editor, Team Manager – Life Sciences, PLOS ONE, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Innes C. Cuthill
- Professor of Behavioural Ecology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Ulrich Dirnagl
- Director, QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health & Department of Experimental Neurology, Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Michael Emerson
- Reader in Platelet Pharmacology, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Garner
- Professor, and Director of the Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health, Clinical Sciences Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicin Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen T. Holgate
- MRC Clinical Professor, Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - David W. Howells
- Professor of Neuroscience and Brain Plasticity, Tasmanian School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | - Natasha A. Karp
- Principal Scientist– Statistician & UK Team Lead, Data Sciences & Quantitative Biology, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, Unite Kingdom
| | | | - Katie Lidster
- Programme Manager – Animal Welfare, NC3Rs, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Malcolm Macleod
- Professor of Neurology and Translational Neuroscience, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
- Academic Lead for Research Improvement and Research Integrity, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Esther J. Pearl
- Programme Manager – Experimental Design, NC3Rs, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ole H. Petersen
- Director of the Academia Europaea Knowledge Hub, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| | - Frances Rawle
- Director of Policy, Ethics and Governance, Medical Research Council, London, United Kingdom
| | - Penny Reynolds
- Biostatistician, Statistics in Anesthesiology Research (STAR) Core & Research Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology College of Medicin University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America
| | - Kieron Rooney
- Associate Professor, Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Stroke Association Kirby Laing Foundation Senior Non-Clinical Lecturer, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburg United Kingdom
| | - Shai D. Silberberg
- Director of Research Quality, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Thomas Steckler
- Associate Director, BRQC Animal Welfare Strategy Lead, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium
| | - Hanno Würbel
- Professor for Animal Welfare, Veterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, Emerson M, Garner P, Holgate ST, Howells DW, Karp NA, Lazic SE, Lidster K, MacCallum CJ, Macleod M, Pearl EJ, Petersen OH, Rawle F, Reynolds P, Rooney K, Sena ES, Silberberg SD, Steckler T, Würbel H. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2020; 40:1769-1777. [PMID: 32663096 PMCID: PMC7430098 DOI: 10.1177/0271678x20943823] [Citation(s) in RCA: 499] [Impact Index Per Article: 124.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2020] [Accepted: 06/30/2020] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Viki Hurst
- Science Manager – Experimental Design and Reporting, NC3Rs, London, United Kingdom
| | - Amrita Ahluwalia
- Professor of Vascular Pharmacology, Co-Director, The William Harvey Research Institute, London, United Kingdom
- Director of the Barts Cardiovascular CTU, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sabina Alam
- Director of Publishing Ethics and Integrity, Taylor & Francis Group, London, United Kingdom
| | - Marc T. Avey
- Lead Health Scientist, Health Science Practice, ICF, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Monya Baker
- Senior Editor, Opinion, Nature, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - William J. Browne
- Professor of Statistics, School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Alejandra Clark
- Senior Editor, Team Manager – Life Sciences, PLOS ONE, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Innes C. Cuthill
- Professor of Behavioural Ecology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Ulrich Dirnagl
- Director, QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health & Department of Experimental Neurology, Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Michael Emerson
- Reader in Platelet Pharmacology, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Garner
- Professor, and Director of the Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health, Clinical Sciences Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen T. Holgate
- MRC Clinical Professor, Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - David W. Howells
- Professor of Neuroscience and Brain Plasticity, Tasmanian School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | - Natasha A. Karp
- Principal Scientist – Statistician & UK Team Lead, Data Sciences & Quantitative Biology, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | - Katie Lidster
- Programme Manager – Animal Welfare, NC3Rs, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Malcolm Macleod
- Professor of Neurology and Translational Neuroscience, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
- Academic Lead for Research Improvement and Research Integrity, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Esther J. Pearl
- Programme Manager – Experimental Design, NC3Rs, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ole H. Petersen
- Director of the Academia Europaea Knowledge Hub, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| | - Frances Rawle
- Director of Policy, Ethics and Governance, Medical Research Council, London, United Kingdom
| | - Penny Reynolds
- Biostatistician, Statistics in Anesthesiology Research (STAR) Core & Research Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America
| | - Kieron Rooney
- Associate Professor, Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Stroke Association Kirby Laing Foundation Senior Non-Clinical Lecturer, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Shai D. Silberberg
- Director of Research Quality, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Thomas Steckler
- Associate Director, BRQC Animal Welfare Strategy Lead, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium
| | - Hanno Würbel
- Professor for Animal Welfare, Veterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, Emerson M, Garner P, Holgate ST, Howells DW, Karp NA, Lazic SE, Lidster K, MacCallum CJ, Macleod M, Pearl EJ, Petersen OH, Rawle F, Reynolds P, Rooney K, Sena ES, Silberberg SD, Steckler T, Würbel H. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. Exp Physiol 2020; 105:1459-1466. [PMID: 32666546 PMCID: PMC7610926 DOI: 10.1113/ep088870] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Viki Hurst
- Science Manager – Experimental Design and Reporting, NC3Rs, London, United Kingdom
| | - Amrita Ahluwalia
- Professor of Vascular Pharmacology, Co-Director, The William Harvey Research Institute, London, United Kingdom
- Director of the Barts Cardiovascular CTU, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sabina Alam
- Director of Publishing Ethics and Integrity, Taylor & Francis Group, London, United Kingdom
| | - Marc T. Avey
- Lead Health Scientist, Health Science Practice, ICF, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Monya Baker
- Senior Editor, Opinion, Nature, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - William J. Browne
- Professor of Statistics, School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Alejandra Clark
- Senior Editor, Team Manager – Life Sciences, PLOS ONE, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Innes C. Cuthill
- Professor of Behavioural Ecology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Ulrich Dirnagl
- Director, QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health & Department of Experimental Neurology, Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Michael Emerson
- Reader in Platelet Pharmacology, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Garner
- Professor, and Director of the Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health, Clinical Sciences Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen T. Holgate
- MRC Clinical Professor, Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - David W. Howells
- Professor of Neuroscience and Brain Plasticity, Tasmanian School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | - Natasha A. Karp
- Principal Scientist – Statistician & UK Team Lead, Data Sciences & Quantitative Biology, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | - Katie Lidster
- Programme Manager – Animal Welfare, NC3Rs, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Malcolm Macleod
- Professor of Neurology and Translational Neuroscience, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
- Academic Lead for Research Improvement and Research Integrity, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Esther J. Pearl
- Programme Manager – Experimental Design, NC3Rs, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ole H. Petersen
- Director of the Academia Europaea Knowledge Hub, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| | - Frances Rawle
- Director of Policy, Ethics and Governance, Medical Research Council, London, United Kingdom
| | - Penny Reynolds
- Biostatistician, Statistics in Anesthesiology Research (STAR) Core & Research Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology College of Medicine University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America
| | - Kieron Rooney
- Associate Professor, Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Stroke Association Kirby Laing Foundation Senior Non-Clinical Lecturer, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburg United Kingdom
| | - Shai D. Silberberg
- Director of Research Quality, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Thomas Steckler
- Associate Director, BRQC Animal Welfare Strategy Lead, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium
| | - Hanno Würbel
- Professor for Animal Welfare, Veterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, Emerson M, Garner P, Holgate ST, Howells DW, Karp NA, Lazic SE, Lidster K, MacCallum CJ, Macleod M, Pearl EJ, Petersen OH, Rawle F, Reynolds P, Rooney K, Sena ES, Silberberg SD, Steckler T, Würbel H. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. Br J Pharmacol 2020; 177:3617-3624. [PMID: 32662519 PMCID: PMC7393194 DOI: 10.1111/bph.15193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 292] [Impact Index Per Article: 73.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Amrita Ahluwalia
- The William Harvey Research Institute, London, UK
- Barts Cardiovascular CTU, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | | | - Marc T Avey
- Health Science Practice, ICF, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | | | | | | | - Innes C Cuthill
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Ulrich Dirnagl
- QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health & Department of Experimental Neurology, Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Michael Emerson
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Paul Garner
- Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health, Clinical Sciences Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
| | - Stephen T Holgate
- Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - David W Howells
- Tasmanian School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | - Natasha A Karp
- Data Sciences & Quantitative Biology, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Ole H Petersen
- Academia Europaea Knowledge Hub, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | | | - Penny Reynolds
- Statistics in Anesthesiology Research (STAR) Core & Research Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| | - Kieron Rooney
- Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | | | - Shai D Silberberg
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | | | - Hanno Würbel
- Veterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, Emerson M, Garner P, Holgate ST, Howells DW, Karp NA, Lazic SE, Lidster K, MacCallum CJ, Macleod M, Pearl EJ, Petersen OH, Rawle F, Reynolds P, Rooney K, Sena ES, Silberberg SD, Steckler T, Wuerbel H. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. BMJ Open Sci 2020; 4:e100115. [PMID: 34095516 PMCID: PMC7610906 DOI: 10.1136/bmjos-2020-100115] [Citation(s) in RCA: 100] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into two sets, the 'ARRIVE Essential 10', which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the 'Recommended Set', which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Viki Hurst
- Experimental Design and Reporting, NC3Rs, London, UK
| | - Amrita Ahluwalia
- William Harvey Research Institute, London, UK
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | | | | | - Monya Baker
- Opinion, Nature, San Francisco, California, USA
| | | | | | - Innes C Cuthill
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Ulrich Dirnagl
- Quest Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
- Department of Experimental Neurology, Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Michael Emerson
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Paul Garner
- Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health, Clinical Sciences Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
| | - Stephen T Holgate
- Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK
| | - David W Howells
- Tasmanian School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Natasha A Karp
- Data Sciences & Quantitative Biology, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca PLC, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK
| | | | | | | | - Malcolm Macleod
- Academic Lead for Research Improvement and Research Integrity, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | - Ole H Petersen
- Academia Europaea Knowledge Hub, Cardiff University, Cardiff, South Glamorgan, UK
| | - Frances Rawle
- Policy, Ethics and Governance, Medical Research Council, London, UK
| | - Penny Reynolds
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| | - Kieron Rooney
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Shai D Silberberg
- Research Quality, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | | | - Hanno Wuerbel
- Veterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, Emerson M, Garner P, Holgate ST, Howells DW, Karp NA, Lazic SE, Lidster K, MacCallum CJ, Macleod M, Pearl EJ, Petersen OH, Rawle F, Reynolds P, Rooney K, Sena ES, Silberberg SD, Steckler T, Würbel H. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. BMC Vet Res 2020; 16:242. [PMID: 32660541 PMCID: PMC7359286 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02451-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 115] [Impact Index Per Article: 28.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Viki Hurst
- Experimental Design and Reporting, NC3Rs, London, UK
| | - Amrita Ahluwalia
- The William Harvey Research Institute, London, UK
- Barts Cardiovascular CTU, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Sabina Alam
- Publishing Ethics and Integrity, Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
| | - Marc T Avey
- Health Science Practice, ICF, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Monya Baker
- Opinion, Nature, San Francisco, California, USA
| | | | | | - Innes C Cuthill
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Ulrich Dirnagl
- QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health & Department of Experimental Neurology, Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Michael Emerson
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Paul Garner
- Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health, Clinical Sciences Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
| | - Stephen T Holgate
- Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - David W Howells
- Tasmanian School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | - Natasha A Karp
- Data Sciences & Quantitative Biology, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK
| | | | | | | | - Malcolm Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | - Ole H Petersen
- Academia Europaea Knowledge Hub, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Frances Rawle
- Policy, Ethics and Governance, Medical Research Council, London, UK
| | - Penny Reynolds
- Statistics in Anesthesiology Research (STAR), Department of Anesthesiology College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| | - Kieron Rooney
- Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Shai D Silberberg
- Research Quality, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - Hanno Würbel
- Veterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Percie du Sert N, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, Emerson M, Garner P, Holgate ST, Howells DW, Hurst V, Karp NA, Lazic SE, Lidster K, MacCallum CJ, Macleod M, Pearl EJ, Petersen OH, Rawle F, Reynolds P, Rooney K, Sena ES, Silberberg SD, Steckler T, Würbel H. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol 2020; 18:e3000411. [PMID: 32663221 PMCID: PMC7360025 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411] [Citation(s) in RCA: 903] [Impact Index Per Article: 225.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research is a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting is vital to this process; it allows readers to assess the reliability of the findings and repeat or build upon the work of other researchers. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) were developed in 2010 to help authors and journals identify the minimum information necessary to report in publications describing in vivo experiments. Despite widespread endorsement by the scientific community, the impact of ARRIVE on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. We have revised the ARRIVE guidelines to update them and facilitate their use in practice. The revised guidelines are published alongside this paper. This explanation and elaboration document was developed as part of the revision. It provides further information about each of the 21 items in ARRIVE 2.0, including the rationale and supporting evidence for their inclusion in the guidelines, elaboration of details to report, and examples of good reporting from the published literature. This document also covers advice and best practice in the design and conduct of animal studies to support researchers in improving standards from the start of the experimental design process through to publication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Amrita Ahluwalia
- The William Harvey Research Institute, London, United Kingdom
- Barts Cardiovascular CTU, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sabina Alam
- Taylor & Francis Group, London, United Kingdom
| | - Marc T. Avey
- Health Science Practice, ICF, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Monya Baker
- Nature, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | | | | | - Innes C. Cuthill
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Ulrich Dirnagl
- QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health & Department of Experimental Neurology, Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Michael Emerson
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Garner
- Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health, Clinical Sciences Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen T. Holgate
- Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - David W. Howells
- Tasmanian School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | | | - Natasha A. Karp
- Data Sciences & Quantitative Biology, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | - Malcolm Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | | | - Ole H. Petersen
- Academia Europaea Knowledge Hub, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| | | | - Penny Reynolds
- Statistics in Anesthesiology Research (STAR) Core, Department of Anesthesiology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America
| | - Kieron Rooney
- Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Shai D. Silberberg
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America
| | | | - Hanno Würbel
- Veterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
McFall A, Hietamies TM, Bernard A, Aimable M, Allan SM, Bath PM, Brezzo G, Carare RO, Carswell HV, Clarkson AN, Currie G, Farr TD, Fowler JH, Good M, Hainsworth AH, Hall C, Horsburgh K, Kalaria R, Kehoe P, Lawrence C, Macleod M, McColl BW, McNeilly A, Miller AA, Miners S, Mok V, O’Sullivan M, Platt B, Sena ES, Sharp M, Strangward P, Szymkowiak S, Touyz RM, Trueman RC, White C, McCabe C, Work LM, Quinn TJ. UK consensus on pre-clinical vascular cognitive impairment functional outcomes assessment: Questionnaire and workshop proceedings. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2020; 40:1402-1414. [PMID: 32151228 PMCID: PMC7307003 DOI: 10.1177/0271678x20910552] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2019] [Revised: 11/21/2019] [Accepted: 12/06/2019] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Assessment of outcome in preclinical studies of vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) is heterogenous. Through an ARUK Scottish Network supported questionnaire and workshop (mostly UK-based researchers), we aimed to determine underlying variability and what could be implemented to overcome identified challenges. Twelve UK VCI research centres were identified and invited to complete a questionnaire and attend a one-day workshop. Questionnaire responses demonstrated agreement that outcome assessments in VCI preclinical research vary by group and even those common across groups, may be performed differently. From the workshop, six themes were discussed: issues with preclinical models, reasons for choosing functional assessments, issues in interpretation of functional assessments, describing and reporting functional outcome assessments, sharing resources and expertise, and standardization of outcomes. Eight consensus points emerged demonstrating broadly that the chosen assessment should reflect the deficit being measured, and therefore that one assessment does not suit all models; guidance/standardisation on recording VCI outcome reporting is needed and that uniformity would be aided by a platform to share expertise, material, protocols and procedures thus reducing heterogeneity and so increasing potential for collaboration, comparison and replication. As a result of the workshop, UK wide consensus statements were agreed and future priorities for preclinical research identified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aisling McFall
- Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, College of
Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow,
UK
| | - Tuuli M Hietamies
- Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, College of
Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow,
UK
| | - Ashton Bernard
- Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, College of
Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow,
UK
| | - Margaux Aimable
- Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK
| | - Stuart M Allan
- Lydia Becker Institute of Immunology and Inflammation, Division
of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological Sciences,
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester,
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Philip M Bath
- Stroke Trials Unit, Division of Clinical Neuroscience,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Gaia Brezzo
- Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK
| | - Roxana O Carare
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton,
UK
| | - Hilary V Carswell
- University of Strathclyde, Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and
Biomedical Science, Glasgow, UK
| | - Andrew N Clarkson
- The Department of Anatomy, Brain Health Research Centre and
Brain Research New Zealand, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
| | - Gillian Currie
- Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK
| | - Tracy D Farr
- School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham ,
UK
| | - Jill H Fowler
- Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK
| | - Mark Good
- School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Atticus H Hainsworth
- Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St
George’s University of London, London, UK
| | - Catherine Hall
- School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
| | - Karen Horsburgh
- Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK
| | - Rajesh Kalaria
- Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon
Tyne, UK
| | - Patrick Kehoe
- Institute of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Bristol,
Bristol, UK
| | - Catherine Lawrence
- Lydia Becker Institute of Immunology and Inflammation, Division
of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological Sciences,
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester,
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Malcolm Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK
| | - Barry W McColl
- Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK
- UK Dementia Research Institute, Edinburgh Medical School,
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Alison McNeilly
- School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital,
Dundee, Scotland
| | - Alyson A Miller
- Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, College of
Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow,
UK
| | - Scott Miners
- Institute of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Bristol,
Bristol, UK
| | - Vincent Mok
- Gerald Choa Neuroscience Centre, Therese Pei Fong Chow Research
Centre for Prevention of Dementia, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine
and Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
| | - Michael O’Sullivan
- Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Queensland,
Australia
| | - Bettina Platt
- Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen,
Aberdeen, Scotland
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK
| | - Matthew Sharp
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton,
UK
| | - Patrick Strangward
- Lydia Becker Institute of Immunology and Inflammation, Division
of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological Sciences,
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester,
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Stefan Szymkowiak
- Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, UK
- UK Dementia Research Institute, Edinburgh Medical School,
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Rhian M Touyz
- Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, College of
Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow,
UK
| | | | - Claire White
- Lydia Becker Institute of Immunology and Inflammation, Division
of Neuroscience and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological Sciences,
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester,
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Chris McCabe
- Institute of Neuroscience & Psychology, College of Medical,
Veterinary & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Lorraine M Work
- Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, College of
Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow,
UK
| | - Terence J Quinn
- Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, College of
Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow,
UK
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, Emerson M, Garner P, Holgate ST, Howells DW, Karp NA, Lazic SE, Lidster K, MacCallum CJ, Macleod M, Pearl EJ, Petersen OH, Rawle F, Reynolds P, Rooney K, Sena ES, Silberberg SD, Steckler T, Würbel H. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2020; 18:e3000410. [PMID: 32663219 PMCID: PMC7360023 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1977] [Impact Index Per Article: 494.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Amrita Ahluwalia
- The William Harvey Research Institute, London, United Kingdom
- Barts Cardiovascular CTU, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sabina Alam
- Taylor & Francis Group, London, United Kingdom
| | - Marc T. Avey
- Health Science Practice, ICF, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Monya Baker
- Nature, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | | | | | - Innes C. Cuthill
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Ulrich Dirnagl
- QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health & Department of Experimental Neurology, Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Michael Emerson
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Garner
- Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health, Clinical Sciences Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen T. Holgate
- Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - David W. Howells
- Tasmanian School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | - Natasha A. Karp
- Data Sciences & Quantitative Biology, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | - Malcolm Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | | | - Ole H. Petersen
- Academia Europaea Knowledge Hub, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| | | | - Penny Reynolds
- Statistics in Anesthesiology Research (STAR) Core, Department of Anesthesiology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America
| | - Kieron Rooney
- Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Shai D. Silberberg
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America
| | | | - Hanno Würbel
- Veterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Wieschowski S, Laser H, Sena ES, Bleich A, Tolba R, Strech D. Attitudes towards animal study registries and their characteristics: An online survey of three cohorts of animal researchers. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0226443. [PMID: 31905203 PMCID: PMC6944338 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226443] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2019] [Accepted: 11/26/2019] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Prospective registration of animal studies has been suggested as a new measure to increase value and reduce waste in biomedical research. We sought to further explore and quantify animal researchers' attitudes and preferences regarding animal study registries (ASRs). DESIGN Cross-sectional online survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS We conducted a survey with three different samples representing animal researchers: i) corresponding authors from journals with high Eigenfactor, ii) a random Pubmed sample and iii) members of the CAMARADES network. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Perceived level of importance of different aspects of publication bias, the effect of ASRs on different aspects of research as well as the importance of different research types for being registered. RESULTS The survey yielded responses from 413 animal researchers (response rate 7%). The respondents indicated, that some aspects of ASRs can increase administrative burden but could be outweighed by other aspects decreasing this burden. Animal researchers found it more important to register studies that involved animal species with higher levels of cognitive capabilities. The time frame for making registry entries publicly available revealed a strong heterogeneity among respondents, with the largest proportion voting for "access only after consent by the principal investigator" and the second largest proportion voting for "access immediately after registration". CONCLUSIONS The fact that the more senior and experienced animal researchers participating in this survey clearly indicated the practical importance of publication bias and the importance of ASRs underscores the problem awareness across animal researchers and the willingness to actively engage in study registration if effective safeguards for the potential weaknesses of ASRs are put into place. To overcome the first-mover dilemma international consensus statements on how to deal with prospective registration of animal studies might be necessary for all relevant stakeholder groups including animal researchers, academic institutions, private companies, funders, regulatory agencies, and journals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susanne Wieschowski
- Institute for Ethics, History, and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Hans Laser
- Center for Information Management (ZIMt), Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - André Bleich
- Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - René Tolba
- Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Aachen, Germany
| | - Daniel Strech
- Institute for Ethics, History, and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
- QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
- Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Hair K, Macleod MR, Sena ES. A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus). Res Integr Peer Rev 2019; 4:12. [PMID: 31205756 PMCID: PMC6560728 DOI: 10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 78] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2018] [Accepted: 04/26/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines are widely endorsed but compliance is limited. We sought to determine whether journal-requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist improves full compliance with the guidelines. METHODS In a randomised controlled trial, manuscripts reporting in vivo animal research submitted to PLOS ONE (March-June 2015) were randomly allocated to either requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist or current standard practice. Authors, academic editors, and peer reviewers were blinded to group allocation. Trained reviewers performed outcome adjudication in duplicate by assessing manuscripts against an operationalised version of the ARRIVE guidelines that consists 108 items. Our primary outcome was the between-group differences in the proportion of manuscripts meeting all ARRIVE guideline checklist subitems. RESULTS We randomised 1689 manuscripts (control: n = 844, intervention: n = 845), of which 1269 were sent for peer review and 762 (control: n = 340; intervention: n = 332) accepted for publication. No manuscript in either group achieved full compliance with the ARRIVE checklist. Details of animal husbandry (ARRIVE subitem 9b) was the only subitem to show improvements in reporting, with the proportion of compliant manuscripts rising from 52.1 to 74.1% (X 2 = 34.0, df = 1, p = 2.1 × 10-7) in the control and intervention groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that altering the editorial process to include requests for a completed ARRIVE checklist is not enough to improve compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines. Other approaches, such as more stringent editorial policies or a targeted approach on key quality items, may promote improvements in reporting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kaitlyn Hair
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Malcolm R. Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Watzlawick R, Antonic A, Sena ES, Kopp MA, Rind J, Dirnagl U, Macleod M, Howells DW, Schwab JM. Outcome heterogeneity and bias in acute experimental spinal cord injury: A meta-analysis. Neurology 2019; 93:e40-e51. [PMID: 31175207 DOI: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000007718] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2018] [Accepted: 02/11/2019] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine whether and to what degree bias and underestimated variability undermine the predictive value of preclinical research for clinical translation. METHODS We investigated experimental spinal cord injury (SCI) studies for outcome heterogeneity and the impact of bias. Data from 549 preclinical SCI studies including 9,535 animals were analyzed with meta-regression to assess the effect of various study characteristics and the quality of neurologic recovery. RESULTS Overall, the included interventions reported a neurobehavioral outcome improvement of 26.3% (95% confidence interval 24.3-28.4). Response to treatment was dependent on experimental modeling paradigms (neurobehavioral score, site of injury, and animal species). Applying multiple outcome measures was consistently associated with smaller effect sizes compared with studies applying only 1 outcome measure. More than half of the studies (51.2%) did not report blinded assessment, constituting a likely source of evaluation bias, with an overstated effect size of 7.2%. Assessment of publication bias, which extrapolates to identify likely missing data, suggested that between 2% and 41% of experiments remain unpublished. Inclusion of these theoretical missing studies suggested an overestimation of efficacy, reducing the effect sizes by between 0.9% and 14.3%. CONCLUSIONS We provide empirical evidence of prevalent bias in the design and reporting of experimental SCI studies, resulting in overestimation of the effectiveness. Bias compromises the internal validity and jeopardizes the successful translation of SCI therapies from the bench to bedside.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ralf Watzlawick
- From Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., U.D., J.M.S.), corporate member of the Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., J.M.S.), Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Neurosurgery (R.W.), Freiburg University Medical Center, Germany; Department of Neuroscience (A.A.), Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne; Stroke Division (E.S.S., M.M., D.W.H.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Departments of Neurology and Clinical Neurosciences (E.S.S., M.M.), University of Edinburgh, UK; Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.) and Excellence Cluster Neurocure (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (U.D.), Bonn; Berlin Institute of Health (M.A.K., U.D.), Germany; University of Tasmania (D.W.H.), School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medical Sciences Precinct, Hobart, Australia; Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), Spinal Cord Injury Medicine (Paraplegiology), and Belford Center for Spinal Cord Injury (J.M.S.), Departments of Neuroscience and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Ana Antonic
- From Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., U.D., J.M.S.), corporate member of the Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., J.M.S.), Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Neurosurgery (R.W.), Freiburg University Medical Center, Germany; Department of Neuroscience (A.A.), Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne; Stroke Division (E.S.S., M.M., D.W.H.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Departments of Neurology and Clinical Neurosciences (E.S.S., M.M.), University of Edinburgh, UK; Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.) and Excellence Cluster Neurocure (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (U.D.), Bonn; Berlin Institute of Health (M.A.K., U.D.), Germany; University of Tasmania (D.W.H.), School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medical Sciences Precinct, Hobart, Australia; Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), Spinal Cord Injury Medicine (Paraplegiology), and Belford Center for Spinal Cord Injury (J.M.S.), Departments of Neuroscience and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Emily S Sena
- From Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., U.D., J.M.S.), corporate member of the Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., J.M.S.), Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Neurosurgery (R.W.), Freiburg University Medical Center, Germany; Department of Neuroscience (A.A.), Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne; Stroke Division (E.S.S., M.M., D.W.H.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Departments of Neurology and Clinical Neurosciences (E.S.S., M.M.), University of Edinburgh, UK; Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.) and Excellence Cluster Neurocure (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (U.D.), Bonn; Berlin Institute of Health (M.A.K., U.D.), Germany; University of Tasmania (D.W.H.), School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medical Sciences Precinct, Hobart, Australia; Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), Spinal Cord Injury Medicine (Paraplegiology), and Belford Center for Spinal Cord Injury (J.M.S.), Departments of Neuroscience and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Marcel A Kopp
- From Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., U.D., J.M.S.), corporate member of the Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., J.M.S.), Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Neurosurgery (R.W.), Freiburg University Medical Center, Germany; Department of Neuroscience (A.A.), Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne; Stroke Division (E.S.S., M.M., D.W.H.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Departments of Neurology and Clinical Neurosciences (E.S.S., M.M.), University of Edinburgh, UK; Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.) and Excellence Cluster Neurocure (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (U.D.), Bonn; Berlin Institute of Health (M.A.K., U.D.), Germany; University of Tasmania (D.W.H.), School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medical Sciences Precinct, Hobart, Australia; Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), Spinal Cord Injury Medicine (Paraplegiology), and Belford Center for Spinal Cord Injury (J.M.S.), Departments of Neuroscience and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Julian Rind
- From Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., U.D., J.M.S.), corporate member of the Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., J.M.S.), Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Neurosurgery (R.W.), Freiburg University Medical Center, Germany; Department of Neuroscience (A.A.), Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne; Stroke Division (E.S.S., M.M., D.W.H.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Departments of Neurology and Clinical Neurosciences (E.S.S., M.M.), University of Edinburgh, UK; Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.) and Excellence Cluster Neurocure (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (U.D.), Bonn; Berlin Institute of Health (M.A.K., U.D.), Germany; University of Tasmania (D.W.H.), School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medical Sciences Precinct, Hobart, Australia; Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), Spinal Cord Injury Medicine (Paraplegiology), and Belford Center for Spinal Cord Injury (J.M.S.), Departments of Neuroscience and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Ulrich Dirnagl
- From Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., U.D., J.M.S.), corporate member of the Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., J.M.S.), Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Neurosurgery (R.W.), Freiburg University Medical Center, Germany; Department of Neuroscience (A.A.), Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne; Stroke Division (E.S.S., M.M., D.W.H.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Departments of Neurology and Clinical Neurosciences (E.S.S., M.M.), University of Edinburgh, UK; Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.) and Excellence Cluster Neurocure (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (U.D.), Bonn; Berlin Institute of Health (M.A.K., U.D.), Germany; University of Tasmania (D.W.H.), School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medical Sciences Precinct, Hobart, Australia; Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), Spinal Cord Injury Medicine (Paraplegiology), and Belford Center for Spinal Cord Injury (J.M.S.), Departments of Neuroscience and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Malcolm Macleod
- From Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., U.D., J.M.S.), corporate member of the Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., J.M.S.), Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Neurosurgery (R.W.), Freiburg University Medical Center, Germany; Department of Neuroscience (A.A.), Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne; Stroke Division (E.S.S., M.M., D.W.H.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Departments of Neurology and Clinical Neurosciences (E.S.S., M.M.), University of Edinburgh, UK; Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.) and Excellence Cluster Neurocure (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (U.D.), Bonn; Berlin Institute of Health (M.A.K., U.D.), Germany; University of Tasmania (D.W.H.), School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medical Sciences Precinct, Hobart, Australia; Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), Spinal Cord Injury Medicine (Paraplegiology), and Belford Center for Spinal Cord Injury (J.M.S.), Departments of Neuroscience and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - David W Howells
- From Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., U.D., J.M.S.), corporate member of the Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., J.M.S.), Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Neurosurgery (R.W.), Freiburg University Medical Center, Germany; Department of Neuroscience (A.A.), Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne; Stroke Division (E.S.S., M.M., D.W.H.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Departments of Neurology and Clinical Neurosciences (E.S.S., M.M.), University of Edinburgh, UK; Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.) and Excellence Cluster Neurocure (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (U.D.), Bonn; Berlin Institute of Health (M.A.K., U.D.), Germany; University of Tasmania (D.W.H.), School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medical Sciences Precinct, Hobart, Australia; Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), Spinal Cord Injury Medicine (Paraplegiology), and Belford Center for Spinal Cord Injury (J.M.S.), Departments of Neuroscience and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Jan M Schwab
- From Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., U.D., J.M.S.), corporate member of the Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health; Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology (R.W., M.A.K., J.R., J.M.S.), Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Neurosurgery (R.W.), Freiburg University Medical Center, Germany; Department of Neuroscience (A.A.), Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne; Stroke Division (E.S.S., M.M., D.W.H.), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Departments of Neurology and Clinical Neurosciences (E.S.S., M.M.), University of Edinburgh, UK; Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.) and Excellence Cluster Neurocure (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (U.D.), Bonn; Berlin Institute of Health (M.A.K., U.D.), Germany; University of Tasmania (D.W.H.), School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medical Sciences Precinct, Hobart, Australia; Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), Spinal Cord Injury Medicine (Paraplegiology), and Belford Center for Spinal Cord Injury (J.M.S.), Departments of Neuroscience and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Currie GL, Angel-Scott HN, Colvin L, Cramond F, Hair K, Khandoker L, Liao J, Macleod M, McCann SK, Morland R, Sherratt N, Stewart R, Tanriver-Ayder E, Thomas J, Wang Q, Wodarski R, Xiong R, Rice ASC, Sena ES. Animal models of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A machine-assisted systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Biol 2019; 17:e3000243. [PMID: 31107871 PMCID: PMC6544332 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000243] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2018] [Revised: 05/31/2019] [Accepted: 04/08/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of research using animal models of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). We systematically searched 5 online databases in September 2012 and updated the search in November 2015 using machine learning and text mining to reduce the screening for inclusion workload and improve accuracy. For each comparison, we calculated a standardised mean difference (SMD) effect size, and then combined effects in a random-effects meta-analysis. We assessed the impact of study design factors and reporting of measures to reduce risks of bias. We present power analyses for the most frequently reported behavioural tests; 337 publications were included. Most studies (84%) used male animals only. The most frequently reported outcome measure was evoked limb withdrawal in response to mechanical monofilaments. There was modest reporting of measures to reduce risks of bias. The number of animals required to obtain 80% power with a significance level of 0.05 varied substantially across behavioural tests. In this comprehensive summary of the use of animal models of CIPN, we have identified areas in which the value of preclinical CIPN studies might be increased. Using both sexes of animals in the modelling of CIPN, ensuring that outcome measures align with those most relevant in the clinic, and the animal's pain contextualised ethology will likely improve external validity. Measures to reduce risk of bias should be employed to increase the internal validity of studies. Different outcome measures have different statistical power, and this can refine our approaches in the modelling of CIPN.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gillian L. Currie
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Helena N. Angel-Scott
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Lesley Colvin
- Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
- Division of Population Health and Genomics, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
| | - Fala Cramond
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Kaitlyn Hair
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Laila Khandoker
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jing Liao
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Malcolm Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah K. McCann
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Rosie Morland
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Nicki Sherratt
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Robert Stewart
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Ezgi Tanriver-Ayder
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - James Thomas
- EPPI-Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Qianying Wang
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Rachel Wodarski
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ran Xiong
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew S. C. Rice
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
|
25
|
Lalu MM, Fergusson DA, Cheng W, Avey MT, Corbett D, Dowlatshahi D, Macleod MR, Sena ES, Moher D, Shorr R, McCann SK, Gray LJ, Hill MD, O'Connor A, Thayer K, Haggar F, Dobriyal A, Chung HS, Welton NJ, Hutton B. Identifying stroke therapeutics from preclinical models: A protocol for a novel application of network meta-analysis. F1000Res 2019; 8:11. [PMID: 30906535 PMCID: PMC6426098 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.15869.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/08/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Globally, stroke is the second leading cause of death. Despite the burden of illness and death, few acute interventions are available to patients with ischemic stroke. Over 1,000 potential neuroprotective therapeutics have been evaluated in preclinical models. It is important to use robust evidence synthesis methods to appropriately assess which therapies should be translated to the clinical setting for evaluation in human studies. This protocol details planned methods to conduct a systematic review to identify and appraise eligible studies and to use a network meta-analysis to synthesize available evidence to answer the following questions: in preclinical in vivo models of focal ischemic stroke, what are the relative benefits of competing therapies tested in combination with the gold standard treatment alteplase in (i) reducing cerebral infarction size, and (ii) improving neurobehavioural outcomes? Methods: We will search Ovid Medline and Embase for articles on the effects of combination therapies with alteplase. Controlled comparison studies of preclinical in vivo models of experimentally induced focal ischemia testing the efficacy of therapies with alteplase versus alteplase alone will be identified. Outcomes to be extracted include infarct size (primary outcome) and neurobehavioural measures. Risk of bias and construct validity will be assessed using tools appropriate for preclinical studies. Here we describe steps undertaken to perform preclinical network meta-analysis to synthesise all evidence for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. This will be a novel use of this evidence synthesis approach in stroke medicine to assess pre-clinical therapeutics. Combining all evidence to simultaneously compare mutliple therapuetics tested preclinically may provide a rationale for the clinical translation of therapeutics for patients with ischemic stroke. Dissemination: Review findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant scientific meetings to promote knowledge transfer. Registration: PROSPERO number to be submitted following peer review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manoj M Lalu
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.,Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.,Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.,Regenerative Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Dean A Fergusson
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.,School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Wei Cheng
- Knowledge Synthesis Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Marc T Avey
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Dale Corbett
- Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.,Heart & Stroke Foundation Canadian Partnership for Stroke Recovery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Dar Dowlatshahi
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.,Heart & Stroke Foundation Canadian Partnership for Stroke Recovery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.,Department of Medicine. Division of Neurology, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.,Neuroscience Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Malcolm R Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - David Moher
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.,Knowledge Synthesis Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Risa Shorr
- Learning Services, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Sarah K McCann
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Laura J Gray
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Michael D Hill
- Cumming School of Medicine, Clinical Neurosciences and Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
| | - Annette O'Connor
- College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA
| | - Kristina Thayer
- National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Fatima Haggar
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Aditi Dobriyal
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.,Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Hee Sahng Chung
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.,Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Nicky J Welton
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Brian Hutton
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.,Knowledge Synthesis Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Altman DG, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne W, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, Emerson M, Garner P, Howells DW, Karp NA, MacCallum CJ, Macleod M, Petersen O, Rawle F, Reynolds P, Rooney K, Sena ES, Silberberg SD, Steckler T, Würbel H, Holgate ST. Revision of the ARRIVE guidelines: rationale and scope. BMJ Open Sci 2018; 2:e000002. [PMID: 33954268 PMCID: PMC7610716 DOI: 10.1136/bmjos-2018-000002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2018] [Revised: 04/11/2018] [Accepted: 05/02/2018] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
In 2010, the NC3Rs published the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to improve the reporting of animal research. Despite considerable levels of support from the scientific community, the impact on the quality of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. This position paper highlights the strategy of an expert working group established to revise the guidelines and facilitate their uptake. The group's initial work will focus on three main areas: prioritisation of the ARRIVE items into a tiered system, development of an explanation and elaboration document, and revision of specific items.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Ulrich Dirnagl
- QUEST–Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Paul Garner
- Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Natasha A Karp
- Quantitative Biology, Discovery Science, IMED Biotech Unit, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Malcolm Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | | | | | - Kieron Rooney
- University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Shai D Silberberg
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Voelkl B, Vogt L, Sena ES, Würbel H. Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples. PLoS Biol 2018; 16:e2003693. [PMID: 29470495 PMCID: PMC5823461 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003693] [Citation(s) in RCA: 135] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2017] [Accepted: 01/19/2018] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Single-laboratory studies conducted under highly standardized conditions are the gold standard in preclinical animal research. Using simulations based on 440 preclinical studies across 13 different interventions in animal models of stroke, myocardial infarction, and breast cancer, we compared the accuracy of effect size estimates between single-laboratory and multi-laboratory study designs. Single-laboratory studies generally failed to predict effect size accurately, and larger sample sizes rendered effect size estimates even less accurate. By contrast, multi-laboratory designs including as few as 2 to 4 laboratories increased coverage probability by up to 42 percentage points without a need for larger sample sizes. These findings demonstrate that within-study standardization is a major cause of poor reproducibility. More representative study samples are required to improve the external validity and reproducibility of preclinical animal research and to prevent wasting animals and resources for inconclusive research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bernhard Voelkl
- Division of Animal Welfare, VPH Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Lucile Vogt
- Division of Animal Welfare, VPH Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Chancellors Building, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Hanno Würbel
- Division of Animal Welfare, VPH Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Hooijmans CR, de Vries RBM, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Rovers MM, Leeflang MM, IntHout J, Wever KE, Hooft L, de Beer H, Kuijpers T, Macleod MR, Sena ES, ter Riet G, Morgan RL, Thayer KA, Rooney AA, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ, Langendam MW. Facilitating healthcare decisions by assessing the certainty in the evidence from preclinical animal studies. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0187271. [PMID: 29324741 PMCID: PMC5764235 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187271] [Citation(s) in RCA: 70] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2017] [Accepted: 10/17/2017] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Laboratory animal studies are used in a wide range of human health related research areas, such as basic biomedical research, drug research, experimental surgery and environmental health. The results of these studies can be used to inform decisions regarding clinical research in humans, for example the decision to proceed to clinical trials. If the research question relates to potential harms with no expectation of benefit (e.g., toxicology), studies in experimental animals may provide the only relevant or controlled data and directly inform clinical management decisions. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important tools to provide robust and informative evidence summaries of these animal studies. Rating how certain we are about the evidence could provide important information about the translational probability of findings in experimental animal studies to clinical practice and probably improve it. Evidence summaries and certainty in the evidence ratings could also be used (1) to support selection of interventions with best therapeutic potential to be tested in clinical trials, (2) to justify a regulatory decision limiting human exposure (to drug or toxin), or to (3) support decisions on the utility of further animal experiments. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is the most widely used framework to rate the certainty in the evidence and strength of health care recommendations. Here we present how the GRADE approach could be used to rate the certainty in the evidence of preclinical animal studies in the context of therapeutic interventions. We also discuss the methodological challenges that we identified, and for which further work is needed. Examples are defining the importance of consistency within and across animal species and using GRADE's indirectness domain as a tool to predict translation from animal models to humans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carlijn R. Hooijmans
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Rob B. M. de Vries
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Maroeska M. Rovers
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Mariska M. Leeflang
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joanna IntHout
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Kimberley E. Wever
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Lotty Hooft
- Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Ton Kuijpers
- Dutch College of General Practitioners, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Malcolm R. Macleod
- Center for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Center for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Gerben ter Riet
- Department of General Practice, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rebecca L. Morgan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Kristina A. Thayer
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., United States of America
| | - Andrew A. Rooney
- Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., United States of America
| | - Gordon H. Guyatt
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Holger J. Schünemann
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Miranda W. Langendam
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Simonato M, Iyengar S, Brooks-Kayal A, Collins S, Depaulis A, Howells DW, Jensen F, Liao J, Macleod MR, Patel M, Potschka H, Walker M, Whittemore V, Sena ES. Identification and characterization of outcome measures reported in animal models of epilepsy: Protocol for a systematic review of the literature-A TASK2 report of the AES/ILAE Translational Task Force of the ILAE. Epilepsia 2017; 58 Suppl 4:68-77. [PMID: 29105071 DOI: 10.1111/epi.13908] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/23/2017] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Current antiseizure therapy is ineffective in approximately one third of people with epilepsy and is often associated with substantial side effects. In addition, most current therapeutic paradigms offer treatment, but not cure, and no therapies are able to modify the underlying disease, that is, can prevent or halt the process of epileptogenesis or alleviate the cognitive and psychiatric comorbidities. Preclinical research in the field of epilepsy has been extensive, but unfortunately, not all the animal models being used have been validated for their predictive value. The overall goal of TASK2 of the AES/ILAE Translational Task Force is to organize and coordinate systematic reviews on selected topics regarding animal research in epilepsy. Herein we describe our strategy. In the first part of the paper we provide an overview of the usefulness of systematic reviews and meta-analysis for preclinical research and explain the essentials for their conduct. Then we describe in detail the protocol for a first systematic review, which will focus on the identification and characterization of outcome measures reported in animal models of epilepsy. The specific goals of this study are to define systematically the phenotypic characteristics of the most commonly used animal models, and to effectively compare these with the manifestations of human epilepsy. This will provide epilepsy researchers with detailed information on the strengths and weaknesses of epilepsy models, facilitating their refinement and future research. Ultimately, this could lead to a refined use of relevant models for understanding the mechanism(s) of the epilepsies and developing novel therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michele Simonato
- Department of Medical Sciences, Section of Pharmacology, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.,University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Sloka Iyengar
- Department of Neurology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, U.S.A
| | - Amy Brooks-Kayal
- Department of Pediatrics, Neurology and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Children's Hospital of Colorado, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, U.S.A
| | | | - Antoine Depaulis
- Grenoble Institute for Neuroscience-INSERM U1216, University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
| | - David W Howells
- School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Frances Jensen
- Department of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A
| | - Jing Liao
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Malcolm R Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Manisha Patel
- Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, U.S.A
| | - Heidrun Potschka
- Institute of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - Matthew Walker
- Institute of Neurology, University College of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Vicky Whittemore
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Osborne NJ, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Ahluwahlia A, Alam S, Brown M, Henderson H, de Leeuw W, Marsh J, Moher D, van Oort E, Rawle F, Riederer BM, Sanchez-Morgado J, Sena ES, Struthers C, Westmore M, Avey MT, Kalman R, O'Connor A, Sargeant J, Petrie A, Smith A. Letter to the editor - round table unites to tackle culture change in an effort to improve animal research reporting. BMC Vet Res 2017; 13:314. [PMID: 29115951 PMCID: PMC5678589 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-017-1235-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2017] [Accepted: 10/30/2017] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
A round table discussion was held during the LAVA-ESLAV-ECLAM conference on Reproducibility of Animal Studies on the 25th of September 2017 in Edinburgh. The aim of the round table was to discuss how to enhance the rate at which the quality of reporting animal research can be improved. This signed statement acknowledges the efforts that participant organizations have made towards improving the reporting of animal studies and confirms an ongoing commitment to drive further improvements, calling upon both academics and laboratory animal veterinarians to help make this cultural change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola J Osborne
- Responsible Research in Practice, Bailey House, 4-10 Barttelot Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1DQ, UK.
| | | | - Amrita Ahluwahlia
- Barts & The London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Sabina Alam
- Faculty of 1000, Middlesex House, 34-42 Cleveland St, London, W1T 4LB, UK
| | - Matthew Brown
- Wellcome Trust, Gibbs Building, 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE, UK
| | - Hayley Henderson
- BMC Veterinary Research, BioMed Central, 236 Grays Inn Road, London, WC1X 8HB, UK
| | - Wim de Leeuw
- Animal Welfare Body Utrecht, Nieuw Gildestein, Room 1.81, Box 80125, NL - 3508 TC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,, kamer 1.82, PO Box 12007, 3501 AA, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Joan Marsh
- The Lancet Psychiatry, 125 London Wall, London, EC2Y 5AS, UK
| | - David Moher
- Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital - General Campus, 501 Smyth Rd, Room L1288, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Erica van Oort
- ZonMw, PO Box 93 245, 2509 AE, The Hague, The Netherlands
| | - Frances Rawle
- Medical Research Council, 13th floor, One Kemble Street, London, WC2B 4AN, UK
| | - Beat M Riederer
- Platform of Morphology, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 9, CH-1005, Lausanne, Switzerland.,Centre for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital of the Canton Vaud, route de Prilly, CH-1008, Lausanne-Prilly, Switzerland
| | - Jose Sanchez-Morgado
- Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, College Green, Dublin 2, Ireland
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Chancellor's Building, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK
| | - Caroline Struthers
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Dept. of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK
| | - Matthew Westmore
- National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK
| | - Marc T Avey
- ICF, 2635 Meridian Parkway Suite 200, Durham, NC, 27713, USA
| | - Rony Kalman
- Authority for Biological and Biomedical Models, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ein Kerem, 91120, Jerusalém, Israel
| | - Annette O'Connor
- Lloyd Vet Med Center Rm 2424, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, 1809 S Riverside Drive, Ames, IA, 50011-3619, USA
| | - Jan Sargeant
- Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses, and Department of Population Medicine, 2502 Stewart Building, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
| | - Anja Petrie
- The University of Aberdeen, Medical Research Facility, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK
| | - Adrian Smith
- Norecopa, c/o Norwegian Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 750 Sentrum, 0106, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Percie du Sert N, Alfieri A, Allan SM, Carswell HV, Deuchar GA, Farr TD, Flecknell P, Gallagher L, Gibson CL, Haley MJ, Macleod MR, McColl BW, McCabe C, Morancho A, Moon LD, O'Neill MJ, Pérez de Puig I, Planas A, Ragan CI, Rosell A, Roy LA, Ryder KO, Simats A, Sena ES, Sutherland BA, Tricklebank MD, Trueman RC, Whitfield L, Wong R, Macrae IM. The IMPROVE Guidelines (Ischaemia Models: Procedural Refinements Of in Vivo Experiments). J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2017; 37:3488-3517. [PMID: 28797196 PMCID: PMC5669349 DOI: 10.1177/0271678x17709185] [Citation(s) in RCA: 97] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
Most in vivo models of ischaemic stroke target the middle cerebral artery and a spectrum of stroke severities, from mild to substantial, can be achieved. This review describes opportunities to improve the in vivo modelling of ischaemic stroke and animal welfare. It provides a number of recommendations to minimise the level of severity in the most common rodent models of middle cerebral artery occlusion, while sustaining or improving the scientific outcomes. The recommendations cover basic requirements pre-surgery, selecting the most appropriate anaesthetic and analgesic regimen, as well as intraoperative and post-operative care. The aim is to provide support for researchers and animal care staff to refine their procedures and practices, and implement small incremental changes to improve the welfare of the animals used and to answer the scientific question under investigation. All recommendations are recapitulated in a summary poster (see supplementary information).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nathalie Percie du Sert
- 1 National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), London, UK
| | - Alessio Alfieri
- 2 The Roslin Institute and R(D)SVS, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, UK
| | - Stuart M Allan
- 3 Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Hilary Vo Carswell
- 4 Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences (SIPBS), University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
| | - Graeme A Deuchar
- 5 Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow/Arum Biosciences, Glasgow, UK
| | - Tracy D Farr
- 6 School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham Medical School, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Lindsay Gallagher
- 5 Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow/Arum Biosciences, Glasgow, UK
| | - Claire L Gibson
- 8 Department of Neuroscience, Psychology and Behaviour, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Michael J Haley
- 3 Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Malcolm R Macleod
- 9 Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Barry W McColl
- 2 The Roslin Institute and R(D)SVS, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, UK
| | - Christopher McCabe
- 5 Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow/Arum Biosciences, Glasgow, UK
| | - Anna Morancho
- 10 Neurovascular Research Laboratory. Vall d'Hebron Research Institute, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; Barcelona, Spain
| | - Lawrence Df Moon
- 11 Wolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases, King's College London, London, UK
| | | | - Isabel Pérez de Puig
- 13 Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques de Barcelona (IIBB), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Anna Planas
- 13 Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques de Barcelona (IIBB), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Anna Rosell
- 10 Neurovascular Research Laboratory. Vall d'Hebron Research Institute, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; Barcelona, Spain
| | - Lisa A Roy
- 5 Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow/Arum Biosciences, Glasgow, UK
| | | | - Alba Simats
- 10 Neurovascular Research Laboratory. Vall d'Hebron Research Institute, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; Barcelona, Spain
| | - Emily S Sena
- 9 Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Brad A Sutherland
- 16 Acute Stroke Programme, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,17 School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | - Mark D Tricklebank
- 18 Centre for Neuroimaging Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Rebecca C Trueman
- 6 School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham Medical School, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Raymond Wong
- 3 Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - I Mhairi Macrae
- 5 Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow/Arum Biosciences, Glasgow, UK
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Zwetsloot PP, Kouwenberg LHJA, Sena ES, Eding JE, den Ruijter HM, Sluijter JPG, Pasterkamp G, Doevendans PA, Hoefer IE, Chamuleau SAJ, van Hout GPJ, Jansen Of Lorkeers SJ. Optimization of large animal MI models; a systematic analysis of control groups from preclinical studies. Sci Rep 2017; 7:14218. [PMID: 29079786 PMCID: PMC5660150 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-14294-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2017] [Accepted: 10/04/2017] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Large animal models are essential for the development of novel therapeutics for myocardial infarction. To optimize translation, we need to assess the effect of experimental design on disease outcome and model experimental design to resemble the clinical course of MI. The aim of this study is therefore to systematically investigate how experimental decisions affect outcome measurements in large animal MI models. We used control animal-data from two independent meta-analyses of large animal MI models. All variables of interest were pre-defined. We performed univariable and multivariable meta-regression to analyze whether these variables influenced infarct size and ejection fraction. Our analyses incorporated 246 relevant studies. Multivariable meta-regression revealed that infarct size and cardiac function were influenced independently by choice of species, sex, co-medication, occlusion type, occluded vessel, quantification method, ischemia duration and follow-up duration. We provide strong systematic evidence that commonly used endpoints significantly depend on study design and biological variation. This makes direct comparison of different study-results difficult and calls for standardized models. Researchers should take this into account when designing large animal studies to most closely mimic the clinical course of MI and enable translational success.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P P Zwetsloot
- Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| | - L H J A Kouwenberg
- Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - E S Sena
- Center for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - J E Eding
- Hubrecht Institute, Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschappen (KNAW), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - H M den Ruijter
- Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - J P G Sluijter
- Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Netherlands Heart Institute (ICIN), Utrecht, The Netherlands.,UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - G Pasterkamp
- Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Central Military Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - P A Doevendans
- Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Netherlands Heart Institute (ICIN), Utrecht, The Netherlands.,UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Central Military Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - I E Hoefer
- Department of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - S A J Chamuleau
- Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Netherlands Heart Institute (ICIN), Utrecht, The Netherlands.,UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - G P J van Hout
- Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Affiliation(s)
- Emily S Sena
- Deanery of Clinical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Zwetsloot PP, Van Der Naald M, Sena ES, Howells DW, IntHout J, De Groot JA, Chamuleau SA, MacLeod MR, Wever KE. Standardized mean differences cause funnel plot distortion in publication bias assessments. eLife 2017; 6:24260. [PMID: 28884685 PMCID: PMC5621838 DOI: 10.7554/elife.24260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 111] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2016] [Accepted: 08/21/2017] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Meta-analyses are increasingly used for synthesis of evidence from biomedical research, and often include an assessment of publication bias based on visual or analytical detection of asymmetry in funnel plots. We studied the influence of different normalisation approaches, sample size and intervention effects on funnel plot asymmetry, using empirical datasets and illustrative simulations. We found that funnel plots of the Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) plotted against the standard error (SE) are susceptible to distortion, leading to overestimation of the existence and extent of publication bias. Distortion was more severe when the primary studies had a small sample size and when an intervention effect was present. We show that using the Normalised Mean Difference measure as effect size (when possible), or plotting the SMD against a sample size-based precision estimate, are more reliable alternatives. We conclude that funnel plots using the SMD in combination with the SE are unsuitable for publication bias assessments and can lead to false-positive results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter-Paul Zwetsloot
- Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.,Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Mira Van Der Naald
- Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.,Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Emily S Sena
- Center for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - David W Howells
- School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | - Joanna IntHout
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Joris Ah De Groot
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Steven Aj Chamuleau
- Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.,Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands.,Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Malcolm R MacLeod
- Center for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Kimberley E Wever
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Bahor Z, Nunes-Fonseca C, Thomson LDG, Sena ES, Macleod MR. Improving our understanding of the in vivo modelling of psychotic disorders: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2017; 3:e00022. [PMID: 28405408 PMCID: PMC5367269 DOI: 10.1002/ebm2.22] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2016] [Revised: 05/19/2016] [Accepted: 08/23/2016] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
Psychosis represents a set of symptoms against which current available treatments are not universally effective and are often accompanied by adverse side effects. Clinical management could potentially be improved with a greater understanding of the underlying biology and subsequently with the introduction of novel treatments. Since many clinical drug candidates are identified through in vivo modelling, a deeper understanding of the pre-clinical field, might help us understand why translation of results from animal models to inform mental health clinical practice has so far been weak. We set out to give a shallow, but broad unbiased overview of experiments looking at the in vivo modelling of psychotic disorders using a systematic review and meta-analysis. This protocol describes the exact methodology we propose to follow in order to quantitatively review both studies characterizing a model and those experiments that investigate the effects of novel therapeutic options. We are interested in assessing the prevalence of the reporting of measures to reduce risk of bias, and the internal and external validity of the animal models and outcome measures used to validate these models. This generation of strong empirical evidence has the potential to identify areas for improvement, make suggestions for future research avenues, and ultimately inform what we think we know to improve the current attrition rate between bench and bedside in psychosis research. A review like this will also support the reduction of animal numbers used in research and the refinement of experiments to maximize their value in informing the field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zsanett Bahor
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
| | | | - Lindsay D G Thomson
- Division of Psychiatry University of Edinburgh, Royal Edinburgh Hospital Edinburgh UK
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
| | - Malcolm R Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Abstract
Background: The existing Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccination provides partial protection against tuberculosis (TB). The modified vaccinia ankara virus-expressing antigen 85A (MVA85A) aims to boost BCG immunity. We evaluated the animal evidence supporting the testing of MVA85A in humans. Methods: Our protocol included in vivo preclinical studies of the MVA85A booster with BCG compared with BCG alone, followed by a TB challenge. We used standard methods for systematic review of animal studies, and summarized mortality, measures of pathology and lung bacterial load. The comprehensive literature search was to September 2014. Two independent investigators assessed eligibility and performed data extraction. We assessed study quality and pooled bacteria load using random effect meta-analysis. Findings: We included eight studies in 192 animals. Three experiments were in mice, two in guinea pigs, two in macaques and one in calves. Overall, study quality was low with no randomization, baseline comparability not described and blinding not reported. For animal death (including euthanasia due to severe morbidity), studies were underpowered, and overall no benefit demonstrated. No difference was shown for lung pathology measured on an ordinal scale or bacterial load. The largest mortality trial carried out in macaques had more deaths in the MVA85A vaccine group, and was published after a trial in South Africa had started recruiting children. Conclusions: This independent assessment of the animal data does not provide evidence to support efficacy of MVA85A as a BCG booster. More rigorous conduct and reporting of preclinical research are warranted, and we believe the results of studies should be publicly available before embarking on trials in humans, irrespective of the findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rufaro Kashangura
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, South Africa.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
McCann SK, Cramond F, Macleod MR, Sena ES. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Interleukin-1 Receptor Antagonist in Animal Models of Stroke: an Update. Transl Stroke Res 2016; 7:395-406. [PMID: 27526101 PMCID: PMC5014900 DOI: 10.1007/s12975-016-0489-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2016] [Revised: 07/25/2016] [Accepted: 07/28/2016] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1 RA) is an anti-inflammatory protein used clinically to treat rheumatoid arthritis and is considered a promising candidate therapy for stroke. Here, we sought to update the existing systematic review and meta-analysis of IL-1 RA in models of ischaemic stroke, published in 2009, to assess efficacy, the range of circumstances in which efficacy has been tested and whether the data appear to be confounded due to reported study quality and publication bias. We included 25 sources of data, 11 of which were additional to the original review. Overall, IL-1 RA reduced infarct volume by 36.2 % (95 % confidence interval 31.6-40.7, n = 76 comparisons from 1283 animals). Assessments for publication bias suggest 30 theoretically missing studies which reduce efficacy to 21.9 % (17.3-26.4). Efficacy was higher where IL-1 RA was administered directly into the ventricles rather than peripherally, and studies not reporting allocation concealment during the induction of ischaemia reported larger treatment effects. The preclinical data supporting IL-1 RA as a candidate therapy for ischaemic stroke have improved. The reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias has improved substantially in this update, and studies now include the use of animals with relevant co-morbidities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah K McCann
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Chancellor's Building, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK
| | - Fala Cramond
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Chancellor's Building, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK
| | - Malcolm R Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Chancellor's Building, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Chancellor's Building, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Chen J, Yang C, Guo B, Sena ES, Macleod MR, Yuan Y, Hirst TC. The Efficacy of Trastuzumab in Animal Models of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0158240. [PMID: 27463246 PMCID: PMC4963137 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158240] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2016] [Accepted: 06/12/2016] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Breast cancer is the most frequent cancers and is the second leading cause of cancer death among women. Trastuzumab is an effective treatment, the first monoclonal antibody directed against the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). To inform the development of other effective treatments we report summary estimates of efficacy of trastuzumab on survival and tumour volume in animal models of breast cancer. Methods We searched PubMed and EMBASE systematically to identify publications testing trastuzumab in animal models of breast cancer. Data describing tumour volume, median survival and animal features were extracted and we assessed quality using a 12-item checklist. We analysed the impact of study design and quality and evidence for publication bias. Results We included data from 83 studies reporting 169 experiments using 2076 mice. Trastuzumab treatment caused a substantial reduction in tumour growth, with tumours in treated animals growing to 32.6% of the volume of tumours in control animals (95%CI 27.8%-38.2%). Median survival was prolonged by a factor of 1.45 (1.30–1.62). Many study design and quality features accounted for between-study heterogeneity and we found evidence suggesting publication bias. Conclusion We have found trastuzumab to be effective in animal breast cancer models across a range of experimental circumstances. However the presence of publication bias and a low prevalence of measures to reduce bias provide a focus for future improvements in preclinical breast cancer research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiarong Chen
- Department of Oncology, Jiangmen Central Hospital, Affiliated Jiangmen Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Jiangmen, Guangdong 529030, P. R. China
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou DaDao Bei, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P. R. China
| | - Canhong Yang
- Department of Neurology, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510630, P. R. China
| | - Bin Guo
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510282, P. R. China
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Chancellors Building, University of Edinburgh, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4SB, United Kingdom
| | - Malcolm R. Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Chancellors Building, University of Edinburgh, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4SB, United Kingdom
| | - Yawei Yuan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou DaDao Bei, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P. R. China
- * E-mail:
| | - Theodore C. Hirst
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Chancellors Building, University of Edinburgh, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4SB, United Kingdom
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Zwetsloot PP, Kouwenberg LE, Sena ES, Eding JE, Sluijter JP, Pasterkamp G, Doevendans PA, Chamuleau SA, van Hout GP, Jansen of Lorkeers SJ. Abstract 55: The Natural Course of Myocardial Infarction in Large Animal Models; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Circ Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1161/res.119.suppl_1.55] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Background:
Large animal models of myocardial infarction (MI) are essential for the development of novel therapeutic strategies. However, it is unclear which experimental factors are independent determinants of disease progression outcomes and the fidelity with which these models resemble MI in humans. The aim of this study was to investigate systematically what independently influences the outcome after MI in large animal models and determine which methodological factors influence primary endpoints and disease progression.
Methods:
We used control animal data from two meta-analyses of large animal models of MI. We performed univariable and multivariable meta-regression to analyze if potential relevant variables were influencing outcomes; infarct size as a ratio of the area at risk (IS/AAR), as a ratio of the left ventricle (IS/LV) and ejection fraction (EF). Pre-defined independent variables were species, sex, weight, ischemia model (open vs closed), occlusion type (temporary vs permanent), occluded vessel, follow-up duration, use of co-medication, use of immunosuppression and study quality. Outcomes and variables were complemented per dataset if needed.
Results:
Our analyses yielded 246 relevant studies, reporting 1500, 1221 and 775 control animals for IS/AAR, IS/LV and EF respectively. Multivariable meta-regression showed IS/AAR was influenced by species (p<0.001), sex (p=0.03), co-medication (p=0.01), occlusion type (p<0.001), occluded vessel (p=0.002) and follow-up (p=0.001). For IS/LV occlusion type (p=0.03), occluded vessel (p=0.03) and study quality (p=0.03) showed significant effects. EF measurements revealed that species (p=0.04), sex (p=0.04) and occluded vessel (p=0.05) were independent predictors. Using these variables, we can partially predict these outcomes for certain study setups.
Conclusion:
Many methodological variations exist in the design of large animal MI studies. This should be taken into account when selecting a model to study therapy efficacy. We provide evidence that disease manifestation and progression greatly depend on certain biological characteristics, e.g. location of MI and sex of the patient. It is therefore possible that therapies have a different effect in specific patient populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Emily S Sena
- Cntr for Clinical Brain Sciences, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Egan KJ, Vesterinen HM, Beglopoulos V, Sena ES, Macleod MR. From a mouse: systematic analysis reveals limitations of experiments testing interventions in Alzheimer's disease mouse models. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2016; 3:e00015. [PMID: 29214041 PMCID: PMC5703440 DOI: 10.1002/ebm2.15] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2015] [Revised: 04/23/2016] [Accepted: 04/28/2016] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses a considerable socio‐economic challenge. Decades of experimental research have not led to the development of effective disease modifying interventions. A deeper understanding of in vivo research might provide insights to inform future in vivo research and clinical trial design. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of interventions tested in transgenic mouse models of AD. We searched electronically for publications testing interventions in transgenic models of AD. We extracted data for outcome, study characteristics and reported study quality and calculated summary estimates of efficacy using random effects meta‐analysis. We identified 427 publications describing 357 interventions in 55 transgenic models, involving 11,118 animals in 838 experiments. Of concern, reported study quality was relatively low; fewer than one in four publications reported the blinded assessment of outcome or random allocation to group and no study reported a sample size calculation. Additionally, there were few data for any individual intervention—only 16 interventions had outcomes described in 5 or more publications. Finally, “trim and fill” analyses suggested one in seven pathological and neurobehavioural experiments remain unpublished. Given these historical weaknesses in the in vivo modelling of AD in transgenic animals and the identified risks of bias, clinical trials that are based on claims of efficacy in animals should only proceed after a detailed critical appraisal of those animal data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K J Egan
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
| | - H M Vesterinen
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
| | - V Beglopoulos
- Centre for Cognitive and Neural Systems University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
| | - E S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
| | - M R Macleod
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Watzlawick R, Rind J, Sena ES, Brommer B, Zhang T, Kopp MA, Dirnagl U, Macleod MR, Howells DW, Schwab JM. Olfactory Ensheathing Cell Transplantation in Experimental Spinal Cord Injury: Effect size and Reporting Bias of 62 Experimental Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS Biol 2016; 14:e1002468. [PMID: 27244556 PMCID: PMC4886956 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002468] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2015] [Accepted: 04/25/2016] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Olfactory ensheathing cell (OEC) transplantation is a candidate cellular treatment approach for human spinal cord injury (SCI) due to their unique regenerative potential and autologous origin. The objective of this study was, through a meta-epidemiologic approach, (i) to assess the efficacy of OEC transplantation on locomotor recovery after traumatic experimental SCI and (ii) to estimate the likelihood of reporting bias and/or missing data. A study protocol was finalized before data collection. Embedded into a systematic review and meta-analysis, we conducted a literature research of databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science from 1949/01 to 2014/10 with no language restrictions, screened by two independent investigators. Studies were included if they assessed neurobehavioral improvement after traumatic experimental SCI, administrated no combined interventions, and reported the number of animals in the treatment and control group. Individual effect sizes were pooled using a random effects model. Details regarding the study design were extracted and impact of these on locomotor outcome was assessed by meta-regression. Missing data (reporting bias) was determined by Egger regression and Funnel-plotting. The primary study outcome assessed was improvement in locomotor function at the final time point of measurement. We included 49 studies (62 experiments, 1,164 animals) in the final analysis. The overall improvement in locomotor function after OEC transplantation, measured using the Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan (BBB) score, was 20.3% (95% CI 17.8–29.5). One missing study was imputed by trim and fill analysis, suggesting only slight publication bias and reducing the overall effect to a 19.2% improvement of locomotor activity. Dose-response ratio supports neurobiological plausibility. Studies were assessed using a 9-point item quality score, resulting in a median score of 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3–5). In conclusion, OEC transplantation exerts considerable beneficial effects on neurobehavioral recovery after traumatic experimental SCI. Publication bias was minimal and affirms the translational potential of efficacy, but safety cannot be adequately assessed. The data justify OECs as a cellular substrate to develop and optimize minimally invasive and safe cellular transplantation paradigms for the lesioned spinal cord embedded into state-of-the-art Phase I/II clinical trial design studies for human SCI. This meta-analysis study examines the effects of transplanting olfactory ensheathing cells in rodents with experimental spinal cord injury, finding evidence for significant recovery and identifying aspects of the procedure that influence the effect size. Spinal cord injury converts into a debilitating disease affecting millions of chronic patients worldwide. Despite increased molecular knowledge over the last decades, no causal pharmacological or cellular therapy has proven effective so far. Due to their unique regenerative capabilities and their autologous origin, olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs) constitute an appealing candidate for topical cell transplantation. In contrast to few and heterogeneous experimental reports of OEC transplantation after spinal cord injury in humans, a considerable number of preclinical studies have been conducted applying OEC transplantation in rodent models. We set out to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess preclinical efficacy of OEC transplantation. We detected a significant overall increase of functional neurological recovery in animals after OEC transplantation compared to the control group. This effect was not distorted by publication bias. We identified several specific hallmarks of the cell transplantation procedure that determine the effect size of the transplantation. Our findings delineate conditions for optimized OEC transplantation into lesioned spinal cords and its relevance for effective translation to human trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ralf Watzlawick
- Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Julian Rind
- Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
- Stroke Division, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Benedikt Brommer
- Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- F.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center, Boston Children's Hospital, and Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States of America
| | - Tian Zhang
- Center for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité–Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Marcel A. Kopp
- Center for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité–Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Ulrich Dirnagl
- Center for Stroke Research Berlin, Charité–Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany
- German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Berlin site, Berlin, Germany
| | - Malcolm R. Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - David W. Howells
- Stroke Division, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- University of Tasmania, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medical Sciences Precinct, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Jan M. Schwab
- Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Charité Campus Mitte, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research Laboratory (Neuroparaplegiology), Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Department of Neurology, Spinal Cord Injury Division, The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, United States of America
- Department of Neuroscience and Center for Brain and Spinal Cord Repair, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Zwetsloot PP, Végh AMD, Jansen of Lorkeers SJ, van Hout GPJ, Currie GL, Sena ES, Gremmels H, Buikema JW, Goumans MJ, Macleod MR, Doevendans PA, Chamuleau SAJ, Sluijter JPG. Cardiac Stem Cell Treatment in Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preclinical Studies. Circ Res 2016; 118:1223-32. [PMID: 26888636 DOI: 10.1161/circresaha.115.307676] [Citation(s) in RCA: 118] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2015] [Accepted: 02/17/2016] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
Abstract
RATIONALE Cardiac stem cells (CSC) therapy has been clinically introduced for cardiac repair after myocardial infarction (MI). To date, there has been no systematic overview and meta-analysis of studies using CSC therapy for MI. OBJECTIVE Here, we used meta-analysis to establish the overall effect of CSCs in preclinical studies and assessed translational differences between and within large and small animals in the CSC therapy field. In addition, we explored the effect of CSC type and other clinically relevant parameters on functional outcome to better predict and design future (pre)clinical studies using CSCs for MI. METHODS AND RESULTS A systematic search was performed, yielding 80 studies. We determined the overall effect of CSC therapy on left ventricular ejection fraction and performed meta-regression to investigate clinically relevant parameters. We also assessed the quality of included studies and possible bias. The overall effect observed in CSC-treated animals was 10.7% (95% confidence interval 9.4-12.1; P<0.001) improvement in ejection fraction compared with placebo controls. Interestingly, CSC therapy had a greater effect in small animals compared with large animals (P<0.001). Meta-regression indicated that cell type was a significant predictor for ejection fraction improvement in small animals. Minor publication bias was observed in small animal studies. CONCLUSIONS CSC treatment resulted in significant improvement of ejection fraction in preclinical animal models of MI compared with placebo. There was a reduction in the magnitude of effect in large compared with small animal models. Although different CSC types have overlapping culture characteristics, we observed a significant difference in their effect in post-MI animal studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Paul Zwetsloot
- From the Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.P.Z., A.M.D.V., S.J.J.o.L., G.P.J.v.H., J.W.B., P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (A.M.D.V., M.-J.G.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (G.L.C., E.S.S., M.R.M.); Department of Nephrology & Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (H.G.); ICIN, Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); and UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.)
| | - Anna Maria Dorothea Végh
- From the Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.P.Z., A.M.D.V., S.J.J.o.L., G.P.J.v.H., J.W.B., P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (A.M.D.V., M.-J.G.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (G.L.C., E.S.S., M.R.M.); Department of Nephrology & Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (H.G.); ICIN, Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); and UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.)
| | - Sanne Johanna Jansen of Lorkeers
- From the Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.P.Z., A.M.D.V., S.J.J.o.L., G.P.J.v.H., J.W.B., P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (A.M.D.V., M.-J.G.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (G.L.C., E.S.S., M.R.M.); Department of Nephrology & Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (H.G.); ICIN, Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); and UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.)
| | - Gerardus P J van Hout
- From the Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.P.Z., A.M.D.V., S.J.J.o.L., G.P.J.v.H., J.W.B., P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (A.M.D.V., M.-J.G.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (G.L.C., E.S.S., M.R.M.); Department of Nephrology & Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (H.G.); ICIN, Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); and UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.)
| | - Gillian L Currie
- From the Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.P.Z., A.M.D.V., S.J.J.o.L., G.P.J.v.H., J.W.B., P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (A.M.D.V., M.-J.G.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (G.L.C., E.S.S., M.R.M.); Department of Nephrology & Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (H.G.); ICIN, Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); and UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.)
| | - Emily S Sena
- From the Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.P.Z., A.M.D.V., S.J.J.o.L., G.P.J.v.H., J.W.B., P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (A.M.D.V., M.-J.G.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (G.L.C., E.S.S., M.R.M.); Department of Nephrology & Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (H.G.); ICIN, Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); and UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.)
| | - Hendrik Gremmels
- From the Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.P.Z., A.M.D.V., S.J.J.o.L., G.P.J.v.H., J.W.B., P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (A.M.D.V., M.-J.G.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (G.L.C., E.S.S., M.R.M.); Department of Nephrology & Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (H.G.); ICIN, Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); and UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.)
| | - Jan Willem Buikema
- From the Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.P.Z., A.M.D.V., S.J.J.o.L., G.P.J.v.H., J.W.B., P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (A.M.D.V., M.-J.G.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (G.L.C., E.S.S., M.R.M.); Department of Nephrology & Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (H.G.); ICIN, Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); and UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.)
| | - Marie-Jose Goumans
- From the Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.P.Z., A.M.D.V., S.J.J.o.L., G.P.J.v.H., J.W.B., P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (A.M.D.V., M.-J.G.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (G.L.C., E.S.S., M.R.M.); Department of Nephrology & Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (H.G.); ICIN, Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); and UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.)
| | - Malcolm R Macleod
- From the Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.P.Z., A.M.D.V., S.J.J.o.L., G.P.J.v.H., J.W.B., P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (A.M.D.V., M.-J.G.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (G.L.C., E.S.S., M.R.M.); Department of Nephrology & Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (H.G.); ICIN, Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); and UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.)
| | - Pieter A Doevendans
- From the Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.P.Z., A.M.D.V., S.J.J.o.L., G.P.J.v.H., J.W.B., P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (A.M.D.V., M.-J.G.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (G.L.C., E.S.S., M.R.M.); Department of Nephrology & Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (H.G.); ICIN, Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); and UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.)
| | - Steven A J Chamuleau
- From the Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.P.Z., A.M.D.V., S.J.J.o.L., G.P.J.v.H., J.W.B., P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (A.M.D.V., M.-J.G.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (G.L.C., E.S.S., M.R.M.); Department of Nephrology & Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (H.G.); ICIN, Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); and UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.)
| | - Joost P G Sluijter
- From the Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.P.Z., A.M.D.V., S.J.J.o.L., G.P.J.v.H., J.W.B., P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (A.M.D.V., M.-J.G.); Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (G.L.C., E.S.S., M.R.M.); Department of Nephrology & Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (H.G.); ICIN, Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.); and UMC Utrecht Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands (P.A.D., S.A.J.C., J.P.G.S.).
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, Egan KJ, Hirst TC, Churolov L, Currie GL, Antonic A, Howells DW, Macleod MR. Corrigendum to 'Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: A practical guide': [Journal of Neuroscience Methods 221 (2014) 92-102]. J Neurosci Methods 2016; 259:156. [PMID: 28760532 DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2015.11.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- H M Vesterinen
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - E S Sena
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - K J Egan
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - T C Hirst
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - L Churolov
- The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - G L Currie
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - A Antonic
- The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - D W Howells
- The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - M R Macleod
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Meta-analyses are considered the gold standard of evidence-based health care, and are used to guide clinical decisions and health policy. A major limitation of current meta-analysis techniques is their inability to pool ordinal data. Our objectives were to determine the extent of this problem in the context of neurological rating scales and to provide a solution. METHODS Using an existing database of clinical trials of oral neuroprotective therapies, we identified the 6 most commonly used clinical rating scales and recorded how data from these scales were reported and analysed. We then identified systematic reviews of studies that used these scales (via the Cochrane database) and recorded the meta-analytic techniques used. Finally, we identified a statistical technique for calculating a common language effect size measure for ordinal data. RESULTS We identified 103 studies, with 128 instances of the 6 clinical scales being reported. The majority- 80%-reported means alone for central tendency, with only 13% reporting medians. In analysis, 40% of studies used parametric statistics alone, 34% of studies employed non-parametric analysis, and 26% did not include or specify analysis. Of the 60 systematic reviews identified that included meta-analysis, 88% used mean difference and 22% employed difference in proportions; none included rank-based analysis. We propose the use of a rank-based generalised odds ratio (WMW GenOR) as an assumption-free effect size measure that is easy to compute and can be readily combined in meta-analysis. CONCLUSION There is wide scope for improvement in the reporting and analysis of ordinal data in the literature. We hope that adoption of the WMW GenOR will have the dual effect of improving the reporting of data in individual studies while also increasing the inclusivity (and therefore validity) of meta-analyses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Toby B. Cumming
- Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Leonid Churilov
- Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Macleod MR, Lawson McLean A, Kyriakopoulou A, Serghiou S, de Wilde A, Sherratt N, Hirst T, Hemblade R, Bahor Z, Nunes-Fonseca C, Potluru A, Thomson A, Baginskaite J, Egan K, Vesterinen H, Currie GL, Churilov L, Howells DW, Sena ES. Correction: Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement. PLoS Biol 2015; 13:e1002301. [PMID: 26556632 PMCID: PMC4640855 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002301] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
|
46
|
van Hout GPJ, Jansen of Lorkeers SJ, Wever KE, Sena ES, Kouwenberg LHJA, van Solinge WW, Macleod MR, Doevendans PA, Pasterkamp G, Chamuleau SAJ, Hoefer IE. Translational failure of anti-inflammatory compounds for myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of large animal models. Cardiovasc Res 2015; 109:240-8. [PMID: 26487693 DOI: 10.1093/cvr/cvv239] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2015] [Accepted: 10/11/2015] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
AIMS Numerous anti-inflammatory drugs have been tested in large animal studies of myocardial infarction (MI). Despite positive results, translation of anti-inflammatory strategies into clinical practice has proved to be difficult. Critical disparities between preclinical and clinical study design that influence efficacy may partly be responsible for this translational failure. The aim of the present systematic review was to better understand which factors underlie the failure of transition towards the clinic. METHODS AND RESULTS Meta-analysis and regression of large animal studies were performed to identify sources that influenced effect size of anti-inflammatory compounds in large animal models of MI. We included 183 studies, containing 3331 large animals. Infarct size (IS) as a ratio of the area at risk (12.7%; 95% confidence interval, CI 11.1-14.4%, P < 0.001) and IS as a ratio of the left ventricle (3.9%; 95% CI 3.1-4.7%, P < 0.001) were reduced in treatment compared with control groups. Effect size was higher when outcome was assessed early after MI (P = 0.013) and where studies included only male animals (P < 0.001). Mortality in treated animals was higher in studies that blinded the investigator during the experiment (P = 0.041) and depended on the type of drug used (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS As expected, treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs leads to smaller infarct size in large animal MI models. Timing of outcome assessment, sex, and study quality are significantly associated with outcome and may explain part of the translational failure in clinical settings. Effect size depends on the type of drug used, enabling identification of compounds for future clinical testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gerardus P J van Hout
- Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht 3584CX, The Netherlands
| | | | - Kimberly E Wever
- Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Emily S Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Lisanne H J A Kouwenberg
- Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht 3584CX, The Netherlands
| | - Wouter W van Solinge
- Department of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Malcolm R Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Pieter A Doevendans
- Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Gerard Pasterkamp
- Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht 3584CX, The Netherlands Department of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Steven A J Chamuleau
- Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Imo E Hoefer
- Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht 3584CX, The Netherlands Department of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Macleod MR, Lawson McLean A, Kyriakopoulou A, Serghiou S, de Wilde A, Sherratt N, Hirst T, Hemblade R, Bahor Z, Nunes-Fonseca C, Potluru A, Thomson A, Baginskitae J, Egan K, Vesterinen H, Currie GL, Churilov L, Howells DW, Sena ES. Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement. PLoS Biol 2015; 13:e1002273. [PMID: 26460723 PMCID: PMC4603955 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 189] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
The reliability of experimental findings depends on the rigour of experimental design. Here we show limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in a random sample of life sciences publications, significantly lower reporting of randomisation in work published in journals of high impact, and very limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in publications from leading United Kingdom institutions. Ascertainment of differences between institutions might serve both as a measure of research quality and as a tool for institutional efforts to improve research quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Malcolm R. Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Aaron Lawson McLean
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | | | - Stylianos Serghiou
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Arno de Wilde
- Medical School, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Nicki Sherratt
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Theo Hirst
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Rachel Hemblade
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Zsanett Bahor
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | | | - Aparna Potluru
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Thomson
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Julija Baginskitae
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Kieren Egan
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Hanna Vesterinen
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Gillian L. Currie
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Leonid Churilov
- Statistics and Informatics Platform, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
- Statistics and Informatics Platform, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
de Vries RBM, Wever KE, Avey MT, Stephens ML, Sena ES, Leenaars M. The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies. ILAR J 2015; 55:427-37. [PMID: 25541545 PMCID: PMC4276599 DOI: 10.1093/ilar/ilu043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 100] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
The question of how animal studies should be designed, conducted, and analyzed remains underexposed in societal debates on animal experimentation. This is not only a scientific but also a moral question. After all, if animal experiments are not appropriately designed, conducted, and analyzed, the results produced are unlikely to be reliable and the animals have in effect been wasted. In this article, we focus on one particular method to address this moral question, namely systematic reviews of previously performed animal experiments. We discuss how the design, conduct, and analysis of future (animal and human) experiments may be optimized through such systematic reviews. In particular, we illustrate how these reviews can help improve the methodological quality of animal experiments, make the choice of an animal model and the translation of animal data to the clinic more evidence-based, and implement the 3Rs. Moreover, we discuss which measures are being taken and which need to be taken in the future to ensure that systematic reviews will actually contribute to optimizing experimental design and thereby to meeting a necessary condition for making the use of animals in these experiments justified.
Collapse
|
49
|
Egan KJ, Vesterinen HM, McCann SK, Sena ES, MacLeod MR. The development of an online database for interventions tested in transgenic mouse models of Alzheimer's disease. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2015; 2:e00010. [PMID: 27570629 PMCID: PMC4981146 DOI: 10.1002/ebm2.10] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2014] [Revised: 06/18/2015] [Accepted: 06/22/2015] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Despite many efforts by the research community, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is still an incurable neurodegenerative condition that affects an estimated 44 million individuals worldwide and this figure is expected to increase to 135 million by the year 2050. As the research community currently reflects on previous endeavours, it is essential that we maximize the use of existing knowledge to inform future trials in the field. This article describes the development of a systematically identified data set relating to over 300 interventions tested in over 10,000 animals. The data set includes cohort‐level information for six structural outcomes and six behavioural assessments. We encourage others to use this dataset to inform the design of future animal experiments modelling AD and to promote effective translation to human health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K J Egan
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
| | - H M Vesterinen
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
| | - S K McCann
- Stroke Division Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health Melbourne Australia
| | - E S Sena
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK; Stroke Division Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health Melbourne Australia
| | - M R MacLeod
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Vesterinen HM, Connick P, Irvine CMJ, Sena ES, Egan KJ, Carmichael GG, Tariq A, Pavitt S, Chataway J, Macleod MR, Chandran S. Drug repurposing: a systematic approach to evaluate candidate oral neuroprotective interventions for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0117705. [PMID: 25856304 PMCID: PMC4391783 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117705] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2014] [Accepted: 12/30/2014] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To develop and implement an evidence based framework to select, from drugs already licenced, candidate oral neuroprotective drugs to be tested in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. DESIGN Systematic review of clinical studies of oral putative neuroprotective therapies in MS and four other neurodegenerative diseases with shared pathological features, followed by systematic review and meta-analyses of the in vivo experimental data for those interventions. We presented summary data to an international multi-disciplinary committee, which assessed each drug in turn using pre-specified criteria including consideration of mechanism of action. RESULTS We identified a short list of fifty-two candidate interventions. After review of all clinical and pre-clinical evidence we identified ibudilast, riluzole, amiloride, pirfenidone, fluoxetine, oxcarbazepine, and the polyunsaturated fatty-acid class (Linoleic Acid, Lipoic acid; Omega-3 fatty acid, Max EPA oil) as lead candidates for clinical evaluation. CONCLUSIONS We demonstrate a standardised and systematic approach to candidate identification for drug rescue and repurposing trials that can be applied widely to neurodegenerative disorders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanna M. Vesterinen
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Peter Connick
- The Anne Rowling Regenerative Neurology Clinic, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Cadi M. J. Irvine
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Kieren J. Egan
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Gary G. Carmichael
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Afiyah Tariq
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Sue Pavitt
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Jeremy Chataway
- National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom
| | - Malcolm R. Macleod
- Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
- * E-mail: (MRM); (SC)
| | - Siddharthan Chandran
- The Anne Rowling Regenerative Neurology Clinic, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
- * E-mail: (MRM); (SC)
| |
Collapse
|