Vol 4: The methodological quality of animal research in critical care: the public face of science.Reportar como inadecuado



 Vol 4: The methodological quality of animal research in critical care: the public face of science.


Vol 4: The methodological quality of animal research in critical care: the public face of science. - Descarga este documento en PDF. Documentación en PDF para descargar gratis. Disponible también para leer online.

Descargar gratis o leer online en formato PDF el libro: Vol 4: The methodological quality of animal research in critical care: the public face of science.
This article is from Annals of Intensive Care, volume 4.AbstractBackground: Animal research AR findings often do not translate to humans; one potential reason is the poor methodological quality of AR. We aimed to determine this quality of AR reported in critical care journals. Methods: All AR published from January to June 2012 in three high-impact critical care journals were reviewed. A case report form and instruction manual with clear definitions were created, based on published recommendations, including the ARRIVE guidelines. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results: Seventy-seven AR publications were reviewed. Our primary outcome animal strain, sex, and weight or age described was reported in 52 68%; 95% confidence interval, 56% to 77%. Of the 77 publications, 47 61% reported randomization; of these, 3 6% reported allocation concealment, and 1 2% the randomization procedure. Of the 77 publications, 31 40% reported some type of blinding; of these, disease induction 2, 7%, intervention 7, 23%, and-or subjective outcomes 17, 55% were blinded. A sample size calculation was reported in 4-77 5%. Animal numbers were missing in the Methods section in 16 21% publications; when stated, the median was 32 range 6 to 320; interquartile range, 21 to 70. Extra animals used were mentioned in the Results section in 31 40% publications; this number was unclear in 23 74%, and 100 for 12 16%. When reporting most outcomes, numbers with denominators were given in 35 45%, with no unaccounted numbers in 24 31%, and no animals excluded from analysis in 20 26%. Most 49, 64% studies reported 40, and another 19 25% reported 21 to 40 statistical comparisons. Internal validity limitations were discussed in 7 9%, and external validity to humans discussed in 71 92%, most with no 30, 42% or only a vague 9, 13% limitation to this external validity mentioned. Conclusions: The reported methodological quality of AR was poor. Unless the quality of AR significantly improves, the practice may be in serious jeopardy of losing public support.



Autor: Bara, Meredith; Joffe, Ari R

Fuente: https://archive.org/







Documentos relacionados