Analyzing the Systematic Review/Meta-analysis of Animal Studies Published in Chinese Journals_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

CHENKuang-yang ^1,2,3 ^# , WANGYa-nan ^1,2,4 ^# , ZHAOYa-qin ^1,2,3 , CHENChao-hu ^1,2,4 , XUJia-ke ^1,2 , HUfang ^1,2 , QULi-na ^1,2 , YANGJing-jing ^1,2 , BAIXi ^1,2 , MATing ^1,2,3 , ZHANGYi-heng ^1,2 ,  MABin ^1,2

1. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
2. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, China;
3. The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 73000, China;
4. The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 73000, China;

Corresponding?author：

MABin, Email: mab@lzu.edu.cn

Keywords：

Animal study; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Current situation analysis

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20150070

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To 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. Methods The 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. Results A 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. Conclusion The 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.

Citation： CHENKuang-yang, WANGYa-nan, ZHAOYa-qin, CHENChao-hu, XUJia-ke, HUfang, QULi-na, YANGJing-jing, BAIXi, MATing, ZHANGYi-heng, MABin. Analyzing the Systematic Review/Meta-analysis of Animal Studies Published in Chinese Journals. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2015, 15(4): 414-418. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20150070 Copy

1.	Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, et al. Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals. PLoS ONE, 2009, 4(11):e7824.
2.	Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic Reviews. London:BMJ Publications, 1995.
3.	Perna A, Remuzzi G. Abnormal permeability to proteins and glomerular lesions:a meta-analysis of experimental and human studies. Am J Kidney Dis, 1996, 27(1):34-41.
4.	Mignini LE, Khan KS. Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies:A Survey of Reviews of Basic Research. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2006, 6:10.
5.	劉鵬, 于鈞, 杜琳琳, 等. RevMan軟件用于碘酸鉀、碘化鉀對小鼠血液抗氧化能力影響的Meta分析. 中國地方病防治雜志, 2008, 23(5):328-330.
6.	Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials:is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials, 1996, 17(1):1-12.
7.	Macleod MR, O`Collins T, Howells DW, et al. Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias. Stroke, 2004, 35(5):1203-1208.
8.	吳倩妮, 田宏亮, 張麗菡, 等. 丹參對大鼠肝再生過程影響的Meta分析. 中國中藥雜志, 2012, 37(17):2630-2634.
9.	Jonas S, Ayigari V, Viera D, et al. Neuroprotection against cerebral ischemia. A review of animal studies and correlation with human trial results. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1999, 890:2-3.
10.	Macleod MR, Oacleod MT, Howells DW, et al. Pooling of Animal Experimental Data Reveals Influence of Study Design and Publication Bias. Stroke, 2004, 35(5):1203-1208.
11.	Ma B, Guo J, Qi G, et al. Epidemiology, Quality and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Published in Chinese Journals. PLoS ONE, 2011, 6(5):e20185.
12.	Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Version5.1.0ed. Chichester. United Kingdom:John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2011.
13.	Hopewell S, Clarke M, Lefebvre C, et al. Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2007, (2):MR000001.
14.	Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, et al. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trail quality in systematic reviews?. Health Technol Assess, 2003, 7(1):1-76.
15.	Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B, 2006, 41(7):1245-1258.
16.	Hooijmans CR, Pasker-de Jong PC, de Vries RB, et al. The effects of long-term omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cognition and Alzheimer's pathology in animal models of Alzheimer's disease:a systematic review and mate-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis, 2012, 28(1):191-209.
17.	Krauth D, Woodruff TJ, Bero L. Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies:a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect, 2013, 121(9):985-992.
18.	Sena E, van der Worp HB, Howells D, et al. How can we improve the preclinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends Neurosci, 2007, 30(9):433-439.
19.	Wever KE, Menting TP, Rovers M, et al. Ischemic preconditioning in the animal kidney, a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2012, 7(2):e32296.
20.	Thayer K, Rooney A, Boyles A, et al. Draft protocol for systematic review to evaluate the evidence for an association between bisphenol A (BPA) exposure and obesity. In National Toxicology Program. U. S. Department of health and human services, 2013.
21.	Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, et al. SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC medical research methodology, 2014, 14:43.
22.	田慧敏, 李云. GBP影響Ⅱ型糖尿病大鼠空腹血糖及胰島素的Meta分析. 西南國防醫藥, 2011, 21(7):715-718.
23.	周玉坤, 彭鴻靈. 人工韌帶表面修飾重建前交叉韌帶的系統評價. 中國組織工程研究與臨床康復, 2010, 14(21):3965-3968.
24.	吳文橋, 單娟, 李幼平, 等. 不同途徑過繼回輸致耐受樹突狀細胞延長小鼠移植心臟存活研究的系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2012, 12(12):1432-1445.
25.	田甜, 郭興青, 倪宏. 非藥物手段對發育期驚厥性腦損傷動物干預的Meta分析. 中華實用兒科臨床雜志, 2013, 28(1):36-41.
26.	袁小龍, 李婷, 王勤. 基于現有抗腫瘤類中藥艾迪的動物試驗有效性評價. 中國實驗方劑學雜志, 2013, 19(10):349-354.
27.	齊廣偉, 鄭佳, 趙瑞波. 酒精干預對大(小)鼠缺血性卒中結局影響的系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(2):204-209.
28.	瞿浩, 李玫, 袁萍, 等. 可降解腦血管支架材料生物相容性的系統評價. 中國組織工程研究與臨床康復, 2011, 15(42):7881-7884.
29.	焦建棟. 鉛對雄性大鼠睪丸重量影響的Meta回歸分析. 現代預防醫學, 2009, 36(17):3225-3228.
30.	孫納. 鉛生殖毒性劑量-反應關系評定的Meta回歸分析. 中國工業醫學雜志, 2010, 23(6):418-420.
31.	周玉坤, 彭鴻靈. 不同材料重建前交叉韌帶腱骨愈合的系統評價. 中國組織工程研究與臨床康復, 2010, 14(25):4737-4740.
32.	黃成國, 袁萍, 董衛濤. 生物可降解心血管支架與人體相容性的系統評價. 中國組織工程研究與臨床康復, 2011, 15(42):7955-7959.
33.	盧鑫, 孫文逵, 高偉, 等. 霧化吸入兩性霉素B對侵襲性肺曲霉病預防效果的Meta分析. 中國呼吸與危重監護雜志, 2012, 11(1):28-36.
34.	吳偉, 朱章志, 江丹, 等. 小檗堿保護糖尿病大鼠腎臟的系統評價. 中華中醫藥雜志, 2013, 5:1622-1626.
35.	馬昌科, 沈憶新. 嗅鞘細胞移植修復大鼠及人類脊髓損傷的Meta分析. 中國脊柱脊髓雜志, 2013, 23(10):905-911.
36.	文怡川, 邵瑛, 賴新生. 針刺癡呆模型大鼠隨機對照實驗的Meta分析. 中國中醫基礎醫學雜志, 2009, 6:463-465.
37.	陳煒, 何麗娜, 李昂, 等. 嗅鞘細胞移植對大鼠脊髓損傷運動功能恢復影響的系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(10):1194-1198.

1. Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, et al. Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals. PLoS ONE, 2009, 4(11):e7824.
2. Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic Reviews. London:BMJ Publications, 1995.
3. Perna A, Remuzzi G. Abnormal permeability to proteins and glomerular lesions:a meta-analysis of experimental and human studies. Am J Kidney Dis, 1996, 27(1):34-41.
4. Mignini LE, Khan KS. Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies:A Survey of Reviews of Basic Research. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2006, 6:10.
5. 劉鵬, 于鈞, 杜琳琳, 等. RevMan軟件用于碘酸鉀、碘化鉀對小鼠血液抗氧化能力影響的Meta分析. 中國地方病防治雜志, 2008, 23(5):328-330.
6. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials:is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials, 1996, 17(1):1-12.
7. Macleod MR, O`Collins T, Howells DW, et al. Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias. Stroke, 2004, 35(5):1203-1208.
8. 吳倩妮, 田宏亮, 張麗菡, 等. 丹參對大鼠肝再生過程影響的Meta分析. 中國中藥雜志, 2012, 37(17):2630-2634.
9. Jonas S, Ayigari V, Viera D, et al. Neuroprotection against cerebral ischemia. A review of animal studies and correlation with human trial results. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1999, 890:2-3.
10. Macleod MR, Oacleod MT, Howells DW, et al. Pooling of Animal Experimental Data Reveals Influence of Study Design and Publication Bias. Stroke, 2004, 35(5):1203-1208.
11. Ma B, Guo J, Qi G, et al. Epidemiology, Quality and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Published in Chinese Journals. PLoS ONE, 2011, 6(5):e20185.
12. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Version5.1.0ed. Chichester. United Kingdom:John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2011.
13. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Lefebvre C, et al. Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2007, (2):MR000001.
14. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, et al. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trail quality in systematic reviews?. Health Technol Assess, 2003, 7(1):1-76.
15. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B, 2006, 41(7):1245-1258.
16. Hooijmans CR, Pasker-de Jong PC, de Vries RB, et al. The effects of long-term omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cognition and Alzheimer's pathology in animal models of Alzheimer's disease:a systematic review and mate-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis, 2012, 28(1):191-209.
17. Krauth D, Woodruff TJ, Bero L. Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies:a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect, 2013, 121(9):985-992.
18. Sena E, van der Worp HB, Howells D, et al. How can we improve the preclinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends Neurosci, 2007, 30(9):433-439.
19. Wever KE, Menting TP, Rovers M, et al. Ischemic preconditioning in the animal kidney, a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2012, 7(2):e32296.
20. Thayer K, Rooney A, Boyles A, et al. Draft protocol for systematic review to evaluate the evidence for an association between bisphenol A (BPA) exposure and obesity. In National Toxicology Program. U. S. Department of health and human services, 2013.
21. Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, et al. SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC medical research methodology, 2014, 14:43.
22. 田慧敏, 李云. GBP影響Ⅱ型糖尿病大鼠空腹血糖及胰島素的Meta分析. 西南國防醫藥, 2011, 21(7):715-718.
23. 周玉坤, 彭鴻靈. 人工韌帶表面修飾重建前交叉韌帶的系統評價. 中國組織工程研究與臨床康復, 2010, 14(21):3965-3968.
24. 吳文橋, 單娟, 李幼平, 等. 不同途徑過繼回輸致耐受樹突狀細胞延長小鼠移植心臟存活研究的系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2012, 12(12):1432-1445.
25. 田甜, 郭興青, 倪宏. 非藥物手段對發育期驚厥性腦損傷動物干預的Meta分析. 中華實用兒科臨床雜志, 2013, 28(1):36-41.
26. 袁小龍, 李婷, 王勤. 基于現有抗腫瘤類中藥艾迪的動物試驗有效性評價. 中國實驗方劑學雜志, 2013, 19(10):349-354.
27. 齊廣偉, 鄭佳, 趙瑞波. 酒精干預對大(小)鼠缺血性卒中結局影響的系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2013, 13(2):204-209.
28. 瞿浩, 李玫, 袁萍, 等. 可降解腦血管支架材料生物相容性的系統評價. 中國組織工程研究與臨床康復, 2011, 15(42):7881-7884.
29. 焦建棟. 鉛對雄性大鼠睪丸重量影響的Meta回歸分析. 現代預防醫學, 2009, 36(17):3225-3228.
30. 孫納. 鉛生殖毒性劑量-反應關系評定的Meta回歸分析. 中國工業醫學雜志, 2010, 23(6):418-420.
31. 周玉坤, 彭鴻靈. 不同材料重建前交叉韌帶腱骨愈合的系統評價. 中國組織工程研究與臨床康復, 2010, 14(25):4737-4740.
32. 黃成國, 袁萍, 董衛濤. 生物可降解心血管支架與人體相容性的系統評價. 中國組織工程研究與臨床康復, 2011, 15(42):7955-7959.
33. 盧鑫, 孫文逵, 高偉, 等. 霧化吸入兩性霉素B對侵襲性肺曲霉病預防效果的Meta分析. 中國呼吸與危重監護雜志, 2012, 11(1):28-36.
34. 吳偉, 朱章志, 江丹, 等. 小檗堿保護糖尿病大鼠腎臟的系統評價. 中華中醫藥雜志, 2013, 5:1622-1626.
35. 馬昌科, 沈憶新. 嗅鞘細胞移植修復大鼠及人類脊髓損傷的Meta分析. 中國脊柱脊髓雜志, 2013, 23(10):905-911.
36. 文怡川, 邵瑛, 賴新生. 針刺癡呆模型大鼠隨機對照實驗的Meta分析. 中國中醫基礎醫學雜志, 2009, 6:463-465.
37. 陳煒, 何麗娜, 李昂, 等. 嗅鞘細胞移植對大鼠脊髓損傷運動功能恢復影響的系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(10):1194-1198.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Analyzing the Systematic Review/Meta-analysis of Animal Studies Published in Chinese Journals

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content