Reporting guideline for systematic reviews of animal experiments in the field of traditional Chinese medicine_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHAO Bing ¹ , HU Kaiyan ¹ , ZENG Xiantao ² , KWONG J.S.W ³ , LI Bo ⁴ , CHEN Hao ⁵ , TIAN Guoxiang ⁶ , XIONG Jun ⁷ , LI Zhaoxia ⁸ , NIU Junqiang ⁹ , DING Fengxing ¹ , LIU Chen ¹ , JIAO Mingyue ¹ , YANG Jinwei ¹ ,  DU Liang ¹⁰ ,  ZHANG Junhua ¹¹ ,  MA Bin ^1,12

1. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
2. Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, P. R. China;
3. Global Health Nursing, St. Luke's International University, Chuo-Ku, Tokyo 1040045, Japan;
4. Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Capital Medical University / Beijing Institute of Chinese Medicine / Beijing Evidence-based Chinese Medicine Center, Beijing 100010, P. R. China;
5. College of Acupuncture and Chinese Tuina, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing 210023, P. R. China;
6. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Seventh Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Editorial Department of Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine, Beijing 100700, P. R. China;
7. The Affiliated Hospital of Jiangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanchang 330006, P. R. China;
8. Second Provincial People’s Hospital of Gansu, Affiliated Hospital of Northwest Minzu University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
9. Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
10. Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center / West China Publishers, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
11. Evidence-based Medicine Center, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin 301617, P. R. China;
12. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;

Corresponding?author：

DU Liang, Email: duliang0606@vip.sina.com; ZHANG Junhua, Email: zjhtcm@foxmail.com; MA Bin, Email: mab@lzu.edu.cn

Keywords：

Reporting guideline; Traditional Chinese medicine; Animal experiments; Systematic review

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202201116

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Based on the PRISMA 2009 checklist, the study analyzed current status and reporting quality of systematic reviews of animal experiments, and consulted experts in relevant fields to form an initial entry pool of reporting checklists for systematic reviews of animal experiments in traditional Chinese medicine (PRISMA-ATCM). Then, the initial entry pool was improved through 2 rounds of Delphi expert consultation. Finally, the items were revised through the consensus meeting, and the final PRISMA-ATCM was formed. Of the 27 items on the PRISMA checklist, 12 were revised and expanded, specifically relating to TCM interventions and animal characteristics. The publication of the PRISMA-ATCM will improve the transparency and standardization of systematic reviews of animal experiments in Chinese medicine.

Citation： ZHAO Bing, HU Kaiyan, ZENG Xiantao, KWONG J.S.W, LI Bo, CHEN Hao, TIAN Guoxiang, XIONG Jun, LI Zhaoxia, NIU Junqiang, DING Fengxing, LIU Chen, JIAO Mingyue, YANG Jinwei, DU Liang, ZHANG Junhua, MA Bin. Reporting guideline for systematic reviews of animal experiments in the field of traditional Chinese medicine. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2022, 22(5): 508-516. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202201116 Copy

1.	Zhang A, Sun H, Wang Z, et al. Metabolomics: towards understanding traditional Chinese medicine. Planta Med, 2010, 76(17): 2026-2035.
2.	Wang X, Zhang A, Sun H, et al. Systems biology technologies enable personalized traditional Chinese medicine: a systematic review. Am J Chin Med, 2012, 40(6): 1109-1122.
3.	Jiang M, Yang J, Zhang C, et al. Clinical studies with traditional Chinese medicine in the past decade and future research and development. Planta Med, 2010, 76(17): 2048-2064.
4.	龔向京, 淦菊保. 理性分析中醫的長短優劣—兼論中醫的科學性及發展方向. 世界中西醫結合雜志, 2018, 13(8): 1165-1169,1180.
5.	Jia Q, Han L, Zhang X, et al. Tongluo Yishen decoction ameliorates renal fibrosis via regulating mitochondrial dysfunction induced by oxidative stress in unilateral ureteral obstruction rats. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 762756.
6.	Wang Y, Zhang X, Wang Y, et al. Application of immune checkpoint targets in the anti-tumor novel drugs and traditional Chinese medicine development. Acta Pharm Sin B, 2021, 11(10): 2957-2972.
7.	Zeng NX, Li HZ, Wang HZ, et al. Exploration of the mechanism by which icariin modulates hippocampal neurogenesis in a rat model of depression. Neural Regen Res, 2022, 17(3): 632-642.
8.	Silbergeld E, Scherer RW. Evidence-based toxicology: strait is the gate, but the road is worth taking. ALTEX, 2013, 30(1): 67-73.
9.	Suh M, Wikoff D, Lipworth L, et al. Hexavalent chromium and stomach cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2019, 49(2): 140-159.
10.	de Vries RB, Wever KE, Avey MT, et al. The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies. ILAR J, 2014, 55(3): 427-437.
11.	Chalmers I, Altman D. Systematic reviews. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1995.
12.	Russell WM, Burch RL, Hume CW. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen, 1959.
13.	Pound P, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Can prospective systematic reviews of animal studies improve clinical translation. J Transl Med, 2020, 18(1): 15.
14.	Mullen PD, Ramírez G. The promise and pitfalls of systematic reviews. Annu Rev Public Health, 2006, 27: 81-102.
15.	Korevaar DA, Hooft L, ter Riet G. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim, 2011, 45(4): 225-230.
16.	Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Leenaars M, Avey M, et al. Systematic reviews of preclinical animal studies can make significant contributions to health care and more transparent translational medicine. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014, (3): ED000078.
17.	Khan KS, Mignini L. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: avoidance of bias is objective of systematic reviews, not meta-analysis. BMJ, 2005, 331(7508): 110-111.
18.	Festing MF, Nevalainen T. The design and statistical analysis of animal experiments: introduction to this issue. ILAR J, 2014, 55(3): 379-382.
19.	Macleod MR, Ebrahim S, Roberts I. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: systematic review and meta-analysis are important contributions. BMJ, 2005, 331(7508): 110.
20.	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.
21.	Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet, 2009, 374(9683): 86-89.
22.	Stinson JN, McGrath PJ, Yamada JT. Clinical trials in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology: applying the CONSORT statement. J Pediatr Psychol, 2003, 28(3): 159-167.
23.	Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L, et al. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA, 2001, 285(15): 1992-1995.
24.	Kilkenny C, Browne W, Cuthill IC, et al. Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines. Br J Pharmacol, 2010, 160(7): 1577-1579.
25.	Percie du Sert N, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, et al. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2. 0. PLoS Biol, 2020, 18(7): e3000411.
26.	Zhao B, Jiang Y, Zhang T, et al. Quality of interventional animal experiments in Chinese journals: compliance with ARRIVE guidelines. BMC Vet Res, 2020, 16(1): 460.
27.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
28.	Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA, 2000, 283(15): 2008-2012.
29.	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.
30.	Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, et al. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med, 2010, 7(2): e1000217.
31.	Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ, 1995, 311(7001): 376-380.
32.	de Villiers MR, de Villiers PJ, Kent AP. The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Med Teach, 2005, 27(7): 639-643.
33.	Humphrey-Murto S, Varpio L, Wood TJ, et al. The use of the delphi and other consensus group methods in medical education research: a review. Acad Med, 2017, 92(10): 1491-1498.
34.	Ho MY, Chan KK, Peacock S, et al. Improving the quality of abstract reporting for economic analyses in oncology. Curr Oncol, 2012, 19(6): e428-435.
35.	Gordon T, Pease A, Delphi RT. An efficient, “round-less” almost real time Delphi method. Technol Fore Social Chang, 2006, 73(4): 321-333.
36.	梁瀟, 段彥蒼, 宋亞靜, 等. 基于文獻研究與專家共識法的原發性痛經中醫證候研究. 中國中醫藥信息雜志, 2020, 27(2): 73-78.
37.	李嘉佳. 基于全球范圍內積極老齡化測量工具評價的本土工具構建. 蘭州: 蘭州大學, 2020.
38.	Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, et al. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health, 1984, 74(9): 979-983.
39.	Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess, 1998, 2(3): 1-88.
40.	范曼如, 申泉, 王丹琦, 等. 臨床實踐指南制訂方法—形成推薦意見的共識方法學. 中國循證心血管醫學雜志, 2019, 11(6): 647-653.
41.	Cheng CW, Wu TX, Shang HC, et al. CONSORT extension for Chinese herbal medicine formulas 2017: recommendations, explanation, and elaboration. Ann Intern Med, 2017, 167(2): 112-121.
42.	吳泰相, 李幼平, 卞兆祥, 等. 中醫藥臨床隨機對照試驗報告規范(征求意見稿). 中國循證醫學雜志, 2007, 7(8): 601-605.
43.	Weir A, Rabia S, Ardern C. Trusting systematic reviews and meta-analyses: all that glitters is not gold! Br J Sports Med, 2016, 50(18): 1100-1101.
44.	趙霏, 唐曉宇, 寇城坤, 等. 動物實驗系統評價/Meta分析的質量和報告特征. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2018, 18(8): 871-877.
45.	Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n71.

1. Zhang A, Sun H, Wang Z, et al. Metabolomics: towards understanding traditional Chinese medicine. Planta Med, 2010, 76(17): 2026-2035.
2. Wang X, Zhang A, Sun H, et al. Systems biology technologies enable personalized traditional Chinese medicine: a systematic review. Am J Chin Med, 2012, 40(6): 1109-1122.
3. Jiang M, Yang J, Zhang C, et al. Clinical studies with traditional Chinese medicine in the past decade and future research and development. Planta Med, 2010, 76(17): 2048-2064.
4. 龔向京, 淦菊保. 理性分析中醫的長短優劣—兼論中醫的科學性及發展方向. 世界中西醫結合雜志, 2018, 13(8): 1165-1169,1180.
5. Jia Q, Han L, Zhang X, et al. Tongluo Yishen decoction ameliorates renal fibrosis via regulating mitochondrial dysfunction induced by oxidative stress in unilateral ureteral obstruction rats. Front Pharmacol, 2021, 12: 762756.
6. Wang Y, Zhang X, Wang Y, et al. Application of immune checkpoint targets in the anti-tumor novel drugs and traditional Chinese medicine development. Acta Pharm Sin B, 2021, 11(10): 2957-2972.
7. Zeng NX, Li HZ, Wang HZ, et al. Exploration of the mechanism by which icariin modulates hippocampal neurogenesis in a rat model of depression. Neural Regen Res, 2022, 17(3): 632-642.
8. Silbergeld E, Scherer RW. Evidence-based toxicology: strait is the gate, but the road is worth taking. ALTEX, 2013, 30(1): 67-73.
9. Suh M, Wikoff D, Lipworth L, et al. Hexavalent chromium and stomach cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2019, 49(2): 140-159.
10. de Vries RB, Wever KE, Avey MT, et al. The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies. ILAR J, 2014, 55(3): 427-437.
11. Chalmers I, Altman D. Systematic reviews. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1995.
12. Russell WM, Burch RL, Hume CW. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen, 1959.
13. Pound P, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Can prospective systematic reviews of animal studies improve clinical translation. J Transl Med, 2020, 18(1): 15.
14. Mullen PD, Ramírez G. The promise and pitfalls of systematic reviews. Annu Rev Public Health, 2006, 27: 81-102.
15. Korevaar DA, Hooft L, ter Riet G. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim, 2011, 45(4): 225-230.
16. Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Leenaars M, Avey M, et al. Systematic reviews of preclinical animal studies can make significant contributions to health care and more transparent translational medicine. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014, (3): ED000078.
17. Khan KS, Mignini L. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: avoidance of bias is objective of systematic reviews, not meta-analysis. BMJ, 2005, 331(7508): 110-111.
18. Festing MF, Nevalainen T. The design and statistical analysis of animal experiments: introduction to this issue. ILAR J, 2014, 55(3): 379-382.
19. Macleod MR, Ebrahim S, Roberts I. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: systematic review and meta-analysis are important contributions. BMJ, 2005, 331(7508): 110.
20. 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.
21. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet, 2009, 374(9683): 86-89.
22. Stinson JN, McGrath PJ, Yamada JT. Clinical trials in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology: applying the CONSORT statement. J Pediatr Psychol, 2003, 28(3): 159-167.
23. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L, et al. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA, 2001, 285(15): 1992-1995.
24. Kilkenny C, Browne W, Cuthill IC, et al. Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines. Br J Pharmacol, 2010, 160(7): 1577-1579.
25. Percie du Sert N, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, et al. Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2. 0. PLoS Biol, 2020, 18(7): e3000411.
26. Zhao B, Jiang Y, Zhang T, et al. Quality of interventional animal experiments in Chinese journals: compliance with ARRIVE guidelines. BMC Vet Res, 2020, 16(1): 460.
27. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2535.
28. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA, 2000, 283(15): 2008-2012.
29. 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.
30. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, et al. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med, 2010, 7(2): e1000217.
31. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ, 1995, 311(7001): 376-380.
32. de Villiers MR, de Villiers PJ, Kent AP. The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Med Teach, 2005, 27(7): 639-643.
33. Humphrey-Murto S, Varpio L, Wood TJ, et al. The use of the delphi and other consensus group methods in medical education research: a review. Acad Med, 2017, 92(10): 1491-1498.
34. Ho MY, Chan KK, Peacock S, et al. Improving the quality of abstract reporting for economic analyses in oncology. Curr Oncol, 2012, 19(6): e428-435.
35. Gordon T, Pease A, Delphi RT. An efficient, “round-less” almost real time Delphi method. Technol Fore Social Chang, 2006, 73(4): 321-333.
36. 梁瀟, 段彥蒼, 宋亞靜, 等. 基于文獻研究與專家共識法的原發性痛經中醫證候研究. 中國中醫藥信息雜志, 2020, 27(2): 73-78.
37. 李嘉佳. 基于全球范圍內積極老齡化測量工具評價的本土工具構建. 蘭州: 蘭州大學, 2020.
38. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, et al. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health, 1984, 74(9): 979-983.
39. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess, 1998, 2(3): 1-88.
40. 范曼如, 申泉, 王丹琦, 等. 臨床實踐指南制訂方法—形成推薦意見的共識方法學. 中國循證心血管醫學雜志, 2019, 11(6): 647-653.
41. Cheng CW, Wu TX, Shang HC, et al. CONSORT extension for Chinese herbal medicine formulas 2017: recommendations, explanation, and elaboration. Ann Intern Med, 2017, 167(2): 112-121.
42. 吳泰相, 李幼平, 卞兆祥, 等. 中醫藥臨床隨機對照試驗報告規范(征求意見稿). 中國循證醫學雜志, 2007, 7(8): 601-605.
43. Weir A, Rabia S, Ardern C. Trusting systematic reviews and meta-analyses: all that glitters is not gold! Br J Sports Med, 2016, 50(18): 1100-1101.
44. 趙霏, 唐曉宇, 寇城坤, 等. 動物實驗系統評價/Meta分析的質量和報告特征. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2018, 18(8): 871-877.
45. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n71.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Reporting guideline for systematic reviews of animal experiments in the field of traditional Chinese medicine

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content