4.6 Article

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews

期刊

PLOS BIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001177

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ottawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds Association
  2. University of Ottawa Junior Research Chair in Innovative Translational Research
  3. Stroke Association [SAL-SNC 18\1003]
  4. NC3Rs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews conducted on diverse topics, but the quality of reporting is inconsistent. Key details for transparency and reproducibility need improvement.
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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据