Quality of reporting and adherence to the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 for preclinical degradable metal research in animal models of bone defect and fracture: a systematic review

In vivo testing is crucial for the evaluation of orthopedic implant efficacy and safety. However, the translation and reproducibility of preclinical animal experiments are not always satisfactory, and reporting quality is among the essential factors that ensure appropriate delivery of information. In this study, we assessed the reporting quality of in vivo investigations that examined the use of degradable metal materials in fracture or bone defect repair. We employed scientific databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP and Sinomed to screen for in vivo investigations on fracture or bone defect repair using degradable metal materials, and extracted both epidemiological and main characteristics of eligible studies, and assessed their reporting quality using the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. Overall, 263 publications were selected, including 275 animal experiments. The overall coincidence rate of Essential 10 (22 sub-items) and Recommended Set (16 sub-items) were 42.0% and 41.5%, respectively. Based on our analysis, the reporting quality of the published in vivo investigations examining fracture/bone defect repair with degradable metal materials was low, and there was a lack of transparent, accurate and comprehensive reporting on key elements of the experimental design and other elements that are meant to avoid bias.

Automated summary

In this study, the reporting quality of in vivo investigations on the use of degradable metal materials in fracture or bone defect repair was assessed. The results showed that the published experiments lacked transparent, accurate, and comprehensive reporting on key elements of the experimental design and other elements meant to avoid bias.