The Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) for improved design, reporting and scientific quality of animal studies GSPC versus ARRIVE guidelines

Contains fulltext : 97414.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access

Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed

Collecting and analysing all available literature before starting an animal experiment is important and it is indispensable when writing a systematic review (SR) of animal research. Writing such review prevents unnecessary duplication of animal studies and thus unnecessary animal use (Reduction). One of the factors currently impeding the production of ‘high-quality’ SRs in laboratory animal science is the fact that searching for all available literature concerning animal experimentation is rather difficult. In order to diminish these difficulties, we developed a search filter for PubMed to detect all publications concerning animal studies. This filter was compared with the method most frequently used, the PubMed Limit: Animals, and validated further by performing two PubMed topic searches. Our filter performs much better than the PubMed limit: it retrieves, on average, 7% more records. Other important advantages of our filter are that it also finds the most recent records and that it is easy to use. All in all, by using our search filter in PubMed, all available literature concerning animal studies on a specific topic can easily be found and assessed, which will help in increasing the scientific quality and thereby the ethical validity of animal experiments

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews

In an effort to better utilize published evidence obtained from animal experiments, systematic reviews of preclinical studies are increasingly more common-along with the methods and tools to appraise them (e.g., SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation [SYRCLE's] risk of bias tool). We performed a cross-sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews (2015-2018) and examined a range of epidemiological characteristics and used a 46-item checklist to assess reporting details. We identified 442 reviews published across 43 countries in 23 different disease domains that used 26 animal species. Reporting of key details to ensure transparency and reproducibility was inconsistent across reviews and within article sections. Items were most completely reported in the title, introduction, and results sections of the reviews, while least reported in the methods and discussion sections. Less than half of reviews reported that a risk of bias assessment for internal and external validity was undertaken, and none reported methods for evaluating construct validity. Our results demonstrate that a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent. Our study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews

S-adenosylmethionine and S-adenosylhomocysteine levels in the aging brain of APP/PS1 Alzheimer mice

Hyperhomocysteinemia and factors of homocysteine metabolism, S-adenosylhomocysteine (AdoHcy) and S-adenosylmethionine (AdoMet), may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). With liquid-chromatography-tandem-mass-spectrometry AdoMet and AdoHcy were determined in brains of 8- and 15-month-old APP/PS1 Alzheimer mice, and their possible roles in AD brains investigated. The finding that AdoMet levels do not differ between the genotypes in (young) 8-month-old mice, but are different in (older) 15-month-old APP/PS1 mice compared to their wild-type littermates, suggests that alterations in AdoMet are a consequence of AD pathology rather than a cause. During aging, AdoMet levels decreased in the brains of wild-type mice, whereas AdoHcy levels diminished in both wild type and APP/PS1 mice. The finding that AdoMet levels in APP/PS1 mice are not decreased during aging (in contrast to wild-type mice), is probably related to less demand due to neurodegeneration. No effect of the omega-3 fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or cholesterol-enriched diets on AdoMet or AdoHcy levels were found

Ischemic Preconditioning in the Animal Kidney, a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) is a potent renoprotective strategy which has not yet been translated successfully into clinical practice, in spite of promising results in animal studies. We performed a unique systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies to identify factors modifying IPC efficacy in renal ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI), in order to enhance the design of future (clinical) studies. An electronic literature search for animal studies on IPC in renal IRI yielded fifty-eight studies which met our inclusion criteria. We extracted data for serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen and histological renal damage, as well as study quality indicators. Meta-analysis showed that IPC reduces serum creatinine (SMD 1.54 [95%CI 1.16, 1.93]), blood urea nitrogen (SMD 1.42 [95% CI 0.97, 1.87]) and histological renal damage (SMD 1.12 [95% CI 0.89, 1.35]) after IRI as compared to controls. Factors influencing IPC efficacy were the window of protection (<24 h = early vs. ≥24 h = late) and animal species (rat vs. mouse). No difference in efficacy between local and remote IPC was observed. In conclusion, our findings show that IPC effectively reduces renal damage after IRI, with higher efficacy in the late window of protection. However, there is a large gap in study data concerning the optimal window of protection, and IPC efficacy may differ per animal species. Moreover, current clinical trials on RIPC may not be optimally designed, and our findings identify a need for further standardization of animal experiments

Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions

The harm benefit analysis (HBA) is the cornerstone of animal research regulation and is considered to be a key ethical safeguard for animals. The HBA involves weighing the anticipated benefits of animal research against its predicted harms to animals but there are doubts about how objective and accountable this process is.i. To explore the harms to animals involved in pre-clinical animal studies and to assess these against the benefits for humans accruing from these studies; ii. To test the feasibility of conducting this type of retrospective HBA.Data on harms were systematically extracted from a sample of pre-clinical animal studies whose clinical relevance had already been investigated by comparing systematic reviews of the animal studies with systematic reviews of human studies for the same interventions (antifibrinolytics for haemorrhage, bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, corticosteroids for brain injury, Tirilazad for stroke, antenatal corticosteroids for neonatal respiratory distress and thrombolytics for stroke). Clinical relevance was also explored in terms of current clinical practice. Harms were categorised for severity using an expert panel. The quality of the research and its impact were considered. Bateson's Cube was used to conduct the HBA.The most common assessment of animal harms by the expert panel was 'severe'. Reported use of analgesia was rare and some animals (including most neonates) endured significant procedures with no, or only light, anaesthesia reported. Some animals suffered iatrogenic harms. Many were kept alive for long periods post-experimentally but only 1% of studies reported post-operative care. A third of studies reported that some animals died prior to endpoints. All the studies were of poor quality. Having weighed the actual harms to animals against the actual clinical benefits accruing from these studies, and taking into account the quality of the research and its impact, less than 7% of the studies were permissible according to Bateson's Cube: only the moderate bisphosphonate studies appeared to minimise harms to animals whilst being associated with benefit for humans.This is the first time the accountability of the HBA has been systematically explored across a range of pre-clinical animal studies. The regulatory systems in place when these studies were conducted failed to safeguard animals from severe suffering or to ensure that only beneficial, scientifically rigorous research was conducted. Our findings indicate a pressing need to: i. review regulations, particularly those that permit animals to suffer severe harms; ii. reform the processes of prospectively assessing pre-clinical animal studies to make them fit for purpose; and iii. systematically evaluate the benefits of pre-clinical animal research to permit a more realistic assessment of its likely future benefits

Systematic review of antiepileptic drugs’ safety and effectiveness in feline epilepsy

Understanding the efficacy and safety profile of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in feline epilepsy is a crucial consideration for managing this important brain disease. However, there is a lack of information about the treatment of feline epilepsy and therefore a systematic review was constructed to assess current evidence for the AEDs’ efficacy and tolerability in cats. The methods and materials of our former systematic reviews in canine epilepsy were mostly mirrored for the current systematic review in cats. Databases of PubMed, CAB Direct and Google scholar were searched to detect peer-reviewed studies reporting efficacy and/or adverse effects of AEDs in cats. The studies were assessed with regards to their quality of evidence, i.e. study design, study population, diagnostic criteria and overall risk of bias and the outcome measures reported, i.e. prevalence and 95% confidence interval of the successful and affected population in each study and in total

Antiepileptic drugs’ tolerability and safety – a systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse effects in dogs

<p>Various anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) are used for the management of idiopathic epilepsy (IE) in dogs. Their safety profile is an important consideration for regulatory bodies, owners and prescribing clinicians. However, information on their adverse effects still remains limited with most of it derived from non-blinded non-randomized uncontrolled trials and case reports.</p><p><span>This poster won third place, which was presented at the Veterinary Evidence Today conference, Edinburgh November 1-3, 2016. </span></p><br /> <img src="https://www.veterinaryevidence.org/rcvskmod/icons/oa-icon.jpg" alt="Open Access" /

Challenges to determining whether DHA can protect against age-related cognitive decline

DHA, an omega-3 fatty acid, is an important constituent of brain membranes and has a key role in brain development and function. This review aims to highlight recent research on DHA’s role during age-related cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. Animal and in vitro studies have provided some interesting mechanistic leads, especially on brain glucose metabolism, that may be involved in neuroprotection by DHA. However, results from human studies are more mitigated, perhaps due to changing DHA metabolism during aging. Recent innovative tools such as 13C-DHA for metabolic studies and 11C-DHA for PET provide interesting opportunities to study factors that affect DHA homeostasis during aging and to better understand whether and how to use DHA to delay or treat Alzheimer’s disease

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist in animal models of stroke: an update

Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1 RA) is an anti-inflammatory protein used clinically to treat rheumatoid arthritis and is considered a promising candidate therapy for stroke. Here, we sought to update the existing systematic review and meta-analysis of IL-1 RA in models of ischaemic stroke, published in 2009, to assess efficacy, the range of circumstances in which efficacy has been tested and whether the data appear to be confounded due to reported study quality and publication bias. We included 25 sources of data, 11 of which were additional to the original review. Overall, IL-1 RA reduced infarct volume by 36.2 % (95 % confidence interval 31.6–40.7, n = 76 comparisons from 1283 animals). Assessments for publication bias suggest 30 theoretically missing studies which reduce efficacy to 21.9 % (17.3–26.4). Efficacy was higher where IL-1 RA was administered directly into the ventricles rather than peripherally, and studies not reporting allocation concealment during the induction of ischaemia reported larger treatment effects. The preclinical data supporting IL-1 RA as a candidate therapy for ischaemic stroke have improved. The reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias has improved substantially in this update, and studies now include the use of animals with relevant co-morbidities. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12975-016-0489-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users