首页> 外文OA文献 >ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesia
【2h】

ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesia

机译:到达尚未到达:支持到达(动物研究:报告体内实验)指南并未改善动物福利,镇痛或麻醉中的报告质量

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Poor research reporting is a major contributing factor to low study reproducibility, financial and animal waste. The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines were developed to improve reporting quality and many journals support these guidelines. The influence of this support is unknown. We hypothesized that papers published in journals supporting the ARRIVE guidelines would show improved reporting compared with those in non-supporting journals. In a retrospective, observational cohort study, papers from 5 ARRIVE supporting (SUPP) and 2 non-supporting (nonSUPP) journals, published before (2009) and 5 years after (2015) the ARRIVE guidelines, were selected. Adherence to the ARRIVE checklist of 20 items was independently evaluated by two reviewers and items assessed as fully, partially or not reported. Mean percentages of items reported were compared between journal types and years with an unequal variance t-test. Individual items and sub-items were compared with a chi-square test. From an initial cohort of 956, 236 papers were included: 120 from 2009 (SUPP; n = 52, nonSUPP; n = 68), 116 from 2015 (SUPP; n = 61, nonSUPP; n = 55). The percentage of fully reported items was similar between journal types in 2009 (SUPP: 55.3 ± 11.5% [SD]; nonSUPP: 51.8 ± 9.0%; p = 0.07, 95% CI of mean difference -0.3-7.3%) and 2015 (SUPP: 60.5 ± 11.2%; nonSUPP; 60.2 ± 10.0%; p = 0.89, 95%CI -3.6-4.2%). The small increase in fully reported items between years was similar for both journal types (p = 0.09, 95% CI -0.5-4.3%). No paper fully reported 100% of items on the ARRIVE checklist and measures associated with bias were poorly reported. These results suggest that journal support for the ARRIVE guidelines has not resulted in a meaningful improvement in reporting quality, contributing to ongoing waste in animal research.
机译:糟糕的研究报告是低研究重现性,金融和动物废物的主要贡献因素。到达(动物研究:报告体内实验)制定了准则,提高了报告质量,许多期刊支持这些准则。这种支持的影响未知。我们假设在支持到达指南的期刊上发表的论文将显示与非支持期刊相比的报告。在回顾性的观察队列研究中,从5次到达(PUSCE)和2个非支持(NONSUPP)期刊,在(2009)和5年之前,选择的文件,选择了到达指南。遵守到达的核对清单20项由两名审稿人和项目分别评估,部分或未报告。在非相当于不平等的T检验期刊类型和年份之间将报告的项目的平均百分比。将个别物品和子项与CHI方检验进行比较。从956的初始队列中,包括236篇论文:从2009年(赞许; n = 52,nonsupp; n = 68),116从2015(supp; n = 61,nonsupp; n = 55)。 2009年期刊类型的完全报告的项目的百分比相似(SCHEP:55.3±11.5%[SD]; NONSUPP:51.8±9.0%; P = 0.07,平均差异的95%CI -0.3-7.3%)和2015( SCHEC:60.5±11.2%;诺普; 60.2±10.0%; p = 0.89,95%CI -3.6-4.2%)。杂志之间的全报告的全部报告的少量增加是相似的(P = 0.09,95%CI -0.5-4.3%)。没有纸张在到达清单上的100%有关的物品,并报告了与偏见有关的措施。这些结果表明,到达指南的期刊支持没有导致报告质量有意义的改善,促进了动物研究中的浪费。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号