Critical analysis of the reporting quality of animal studies within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontics (PRIASE) 2021 quality standard checklist

AIM

To critically evaluate the reporting quality of a random sample of animal studies within the field of endodontics against the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontics (PRIASE) 2021 checklist and to investigate the association between the quality of reporting and several characteristics of the selected studies.

METHODOLOGY

Fifty animal studies related to endodontics were randomly selected from the PubMed database with publication dates from January 2017 to December 2021. For each study, a score of '1' was given when the item of the PRIASE 2021 checklist was fully reported, whereas a score of '0' was given when an item was not reported; when the item was inadequately or partially reported, a score of '0.5' was given. Based on the overall scores allocated to each manuscript, they were allocated into three categories of reporting quality: low, moderate and high. Associations between study characteristics and reporting quality scores were also analysed. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact tests were used to describe the data and determine associations. The probability value of .05 was selected as the level of statistical significance.

RESULTS

Based on the overall scores, four (8%) and 46 (92%) of the animal studies evaluated were categorized as 'High' and 'Moderate' reporting quality, respectively. A number of items were adequately reported in all studies related to background (Item 4a), relevance of methods/results (7a) and interpretation of images (11e), whereas only one item related to changes in protocol (6d) was not reported in any. No associations were confirmed between reporting quality scores and number of authors, origin of the corresponding author, journal of publication (endodontic specialty vs. non- specialty), impact factor or year of publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Animal studies published in the specialty of endodontics were mostly of 'moderate' quality in terms of the quality of reporting. Adherence to the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will enhance the reporting of animal studies in the expectation that all future publications will be high quality.

PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: a consensus-based development

Animal testing is crucial in situations when research on humans is not allowed because of unknown health risks and ethical concerns. The current project aims to develop reporting guidelines exclusively for animal studies in Endodontology, using an established consensus-based methodology. The guidelines have been named: Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021. Nine individuals (PD, VN, AK, PM, MN, JF, EP, JJ and SJ), including the project leaders (PD, VN) formed a steering committee. The steering committee developed a novel checklist by adapting and integrating their animal testing and peer review experience with the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines and also the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. A PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRIASE Online Meeting Group (POMG) were also formed. Thirty-one PDG members participated in the online Delphi process and achieved consensus on the checklist items and flowchart that were used to formulate the PRIASE guidelines. The novel PRIASE 2021 guidelines were discussed with the POMG on 9 September 2020 via a Zoom online video call attended by 21 individuals from across the globe and seven steering committee members. Following the discussions, the guidelines were modified and then piloted by several authors whilst writing a manuscript involving research on animals. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are a checklist consisting of 11 domains and 43 individual items together with a flowchart. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines are focused on improving the methodological principles, reproducibility and quality of animal studies in order to enhance their reliability as well as repeatability to estimate the effects of endodontic treatments and usefulness for guiding future clinical studies on humans.