Nephron · 2024
Reporting Practices for Animal Studies on Peritoneal Dialysis Conducted in 2021-2023 after the Introduction of the ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Witowski Janusz, Sikorska Dorota, Catar Rusan
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The first version of Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments (ARRIVE 1.0) guidelines was introduced to improve reporting of animal research but did not lead to major improvements in this respect. This applied also to animal studies on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Here, we examined the performance of the revised version of these guidelines (ARRIVE 2.0).
METHODS: Eighty-nine relevant articles published in 2018-2020 (ARRIVE 1.0 period) and 97 published in 2021-2023 (ARRIVE 2.0 period) were identified in PubMed® and analyzed for completeness and transparency of reporting.
RESULTS: In both periods, most studies were carried out in Asia, on rodents, and concerned the peritoneal pathophysiology. During ARRIVE 2.0, more studies were published in higher impact factor journals with the focus on pharmacology and immunology. Compared to ARRIVE 1.0, general aspects of study design and reporting improved during ARRIVE 2.0 period in studies generated in Europe and USA but did not change significantly in Asia. Detailed analysis showed no global improvement in completeness of reporting key information included in the ARRIVE 2.0 Essential 10 checklist. Articles from both periods were deficient in sample size calculations, use of blinding, recording adverse events and drop-outs, and specification of appropriate statistical methods. The level of reporting during ARRIVE 2.0 did not correspond to the journal impact factor and the presence of recommendations for the use of ARRIVE 2.0 in their instructions to authors.
CONCLUSION: So far, ARRIVE 2.0 has not produced significant improvements in the reporting of animal studies in PD.
METHODS: Eighty-nine relevant articles published in 2018-2020 (ARRIVE 1.0 period) and 97 published in 2021-2023 (ARRIVE 2.0 period) were identified in PubMed® and analyzed for completeness and transparency of reporting.
RESULTS: In both periods, most studies were carried out in Asia, on rodents, and concerned the peritoneal pathophysiology. During ARRIVE 2.0, more studies were published in higher impact factor journals with the focus on pharmacology and immunology. Compared to ARRIVE 1.0, general aspects of study design and reporting improved during ARRIVE 2.0 period in studies generated in Europe and USA but did not change significantly in Asia. Detailed analysis showed no global improvement in completeness of reporting key information included in the ARRIVE 2.0 Essential 10 checklist. Articles from both periods were deficient in sample size calculations, use of blinding, recording adverse events and drop-outs, and specification of appropriate statistical methods. The level of reporting during ARRIVE 2.0 did not correspond to the journal impact factor and the presence of recommendations for the use of ARRIVE 2.0 in their instructions to authors.
CONCLUSION: So far, ARRIVE 2.0 has not produced significant improvements in the reporting of animal studies in PD.