ObjectiveTo provide a reference for developing search strategy of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of animal researches (ARs) in future, we investigated and analyzed the search strategy of SRs/MAs of ARs at home and abroad. MethodsOvid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMbase, Ovid-BIOSIS previews, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched from inception to January 2015, to collect SRs/MAs of ARs that related to medicine. No limitation in species. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted basic characteristics, databases and other sources searched, characteristics of reported search strategy of included studies. ResultA total of 181 SRs/MAs of ARs were finally included. Less than 30% SRs/MAs searched more than three databases, 65.7% reported supplementary retrieval. 86.2% (156/181) SRs/MAs reported search terms, but only 12 reported search strategy; the search terms of 33 studies included specific name of animal, 27 studies used "animal/experimental model/", 20 studies used "limit to animal". 71.3% SRs/MAs reported specific time limitation of searching, 44.2% reported whether limited language, 23.8% of them limited language, and more of these limited to English. ConclusionAt present, there are still some problems in SRs/MAs of ARs at home and abroad when choice database, search terms and search strategy, so we advise that:1) It's necessary to choice typical databases as many as possible according to search field; 2) Using specific animal's name and (or) "animal" as one of search terms, and using "limit to animal" according to characteristic of different databases; 3) The reporting of search strategy of SRs/MAs of ARs should include search sources, time limitation, language limitation, limitation of inclusion type, search terms and complete search strategy, besides, reporting knowledge of reviewers is also necessary; 4) To improve transparency and clarity of SRs/MAs of ARs, some related journals should introduce "reporting complete search strategy" in their instruction for authors.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of ibuprofen for premature infants with patent ductus arteriosus. MethodsDatabases including PubMed, Ovid-EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2014), CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs about ibuprofen for premature infants with patent ductus arteriosus from inception to December 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 37 RCTs, involving 2 370 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the placebo/blank group, ibuprofen could increase the closure rate of PDA (LBWI:RR=1.93, 95%CI 1.25 to 2.99，P=0.003; VLBW:RR=1.23, 95%CI 1.02 to 1.48, P=0.03; ELBWI:RR=2.86, 95%CI 1.51 to 5.41, P=0.001) and decrease the incidence of sepsis (VLBW:RR=0.21, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.64，P=0.006); Compared with the indometacin groups, ibuprofen could decrease the incidence of the increase of serum creatinine (LBWI:RR=0.11, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.37, P=0.000 2), NEC (LBWI, RR=0.52, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.95, P=0.03) and oliguria (LBWI: RR=0.30, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.56, P=0.000 2; VLBW:RR=1.40, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.92, P=0.03); Compared with the intravenous ibuprofen, Oral ibuprofen could increase the closure rate of PDA (VLBW: RR=1.35, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.62, P=0.002; ELBWI, RR=1.42, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.87, P=0.01). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that there is not indeterminate between ibuprofen and paracetamol groups. Compared with other general drugs, ibuprofen has an advantage over curing PDA and obviously reduces side effects. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
At present, there are many items/checklists used to assess the methodological quality of animal studies. Yet, no tool has been specifically designed for assessing internal validity of animal studies. This articles introduce and interprets SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies in detail for Chinese scholars to accurately assess the methodological quality of animal studies when they develop systematic reviews on animal studies, so as to provide references for scientific design and implementation of animal studies.
ObjectiveTo survey the important characteristics, such as the number of time cited, methodological and reporting quality of the systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA) of animal studies published in Chinese journals. MethodsThe CNKI and WanFang Data databases were searched for SR/MA of animal studies published in Chinese journals from inception to March 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted basic characteristic and methodology characteristics of included studies. And then a descriptive analysis was conducted. ResultsA total of 18 studies published in 13 different journals were included. 77.8% studies were not been cited, 44.4% did not report the types of including studies. Besides, there were some certain weaknesses in the methodological quality, for example, over 60% studies did not assess the qualities and publication bias of the including studies, 22.2% SRs/MAs only searched Chinese databases, over 80% studies did not provide flow chart etc. ConclusionThe number of SRs/MAs of animal studies published in Chinese journals is small and the number of times cited is low, and the methodological and reporting quality is poor. So, focusing on improving the quality of SRs/MAs is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies.
ObjectiveTo provide references for scientific selection of different tools/guidelines by comprehensively collecting international and national tools/guidelines for assessing reporting quality and methodological quality of animal experiments, comparing them in development foundation, application scope, and aims. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched up to July 2014, to collect tools/guidelines for reporting quality and methodological quality of primary animal experiments. We extracted data from included guidelines/tools, including the number of items, development foundation, disease models, application scope, and assessment focus. Then descriptive analysis was conducted. ResultsA total of 32 studies were finally included, of which, 6 were for reporting quality and 26 for methodological quality. The item number of the included tools/guidelines ranged from 2 to 54. Seven tools/guidelines applied score system to assess methodological quality. Fifteen tools/guidelines were designed for specific disease models. Nineteen tools/guidelines were suitable for assessing preclinical drug studies, and 4 were designed to assess environmental toxicology research. ConclusionAlthough many tools for assessing methodological quality of animal experiments have been published so far, SYRCLE's risk of bias tool is the only one that is used to assess internal validity of animal experiments at present. Besides, although the ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC are not official mandatory reporting criteria at present, they are acknowledged by many researchers as efficient reference checklists and writing guidelines for writing and publishing animal experiments. We recommend the application of SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC, in order to efficiently improve research design, implementation, reporting, differentiation, and evaluation of animal experiments, promote the development of animal experiments, and to promote full application and translation of scientific achievements.