• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >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：尚未收到ARRIVE：对ARRIVE（动物研究：体内实验报告）指南的支持无法提高动物福利，镇痛或麻醉方面论文的报告质量

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。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

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：研究报告不佳是导致研究重复性低，财务和动物浪费低的主要因素。 ARRIVE（动物研究：体内实验报告）指南旨在提高报告质量，许多期刊都支持这些指南。这种支持的影响是未知的。我们假设在支持ARRIVE指南的期刊上发表的论文与在非支持期刊上发表的论文相比，会显示出更好的报告质量。在一项回顾性观察队列研究中，选择了ARRIVE指南之前（2009年）和5年之后（2015年）发表的5种ARRIVE支持（SUPP）和2种非支持（nonSUPP）期刊的论文。两名审阅者分别评估了对20份物品的到达清单的遵守情况，并且将其评定为完全，部分或未报告。使用不等方差t检验比较了报告类型和年份之间报告项目的平均百分比。将单个项目和子项目与卡方检验进行比较。最初的956人中包括236篇论文：2009年的120篇（SUPP; n = 52，nonSUPP; n = 68），116篇的2015年（SUPP; n = 61，nonSUPP; n = 55）。在2009年（SUPP：55.3±11.5％[SD]; nonSUPP：51.8±9.0％; p = 0.07，95％CI的平均差异-0.3–7.3％）之间，完全报告项目的百分比在期刊类型之间相似（SUPP：55.3±11.5％[SD]; SUPP：60.5±11.2％；非SUPP； 60.2±10.0％； p = 0.89，95％CI -3.6–4.2％）。两种类型的期刊之间，几年间完全报告项目的少量增加相似（p = 0.09，95％CI -0.5–4.3％）。没有论文能完全报告“进货”检查清单中100％的项目，并且与偏见相关的措施也很少报告。这些结果表明，期刊对ARRIVE指南的支持并未导致报告质量的显着提高，从而导致了动物研究方面的持续浪费。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 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