A Gold Standard Publication Checklist to Improve the Quality of Animal Studies, to Fully Integrate the Three Rs, and to Make Systematic Reviews More Feasible
A Gold Standard Publication Checklist to Improve the Quality of Animal Studies, to Fully Integrate the Three Rs, and to Make Systematic Reviews More Feasible
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/026119291003800208
复制
发表时间：
2010-05-01
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hooijmans, Carlijn R.;Leenaars, Marlies;Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel
系统评价通常被循证医学领域的专业人员视为最高水平的医学证据，并且已经成为临床研究的标准做法。然而，它们还没有被广泛使用，也没有在动物实验领域进行，尽管从这个过程中可以获得很多东西。因此，本文提出了动物研究的金标准出版物清单（GSPC）。清单上的项目是在文献分析和由此产生的科学证据的基础上选择的，这些因素是决定动物研究结果的决定性因素。为了使将来对动物研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析成为可能，为了允许其他人复制和建立以前发表的工作，减少动物实验所需的动物数量（减少），改善动物福利（改进），最重要的是，提高动物实验科学论文的质量，需要使用和遵循此出版物清单。我们通过与动物实验领域专家的访谈反馈，讨论并优化了该GSPC。从这些采访中，很明显，当期刊要求时，科学家们将采用这种GSPC。GSPC与目前来自9个不同期刊的作者指南进行了比较，这些期刊是根据它们在动物研究方面的大量出版物而选择的。一般来说，期刊对动物研究描述的要求是如此有限，以至于不可能重复研究，更不用说进行系统评价了。通过使用GSPC进行动物研究，将提高科学论文的质量。GSPC的使用和随之而来的科学论文质量的提高也将有助于减少变异和提高标准化，因此，减少使用的动物数量和更可靠的动物研究结果。期刊编辑相信并采纳这些建议是非常重要的，因为只有这样，科学家才会完全遵循这些指导方针。
Systematic reviews are generally regarded by professionals in the field of evidence-based medicine as the highest level of medical evidence, and they are already standard practice for clinical studies. However, they are not yet widely used nor undertaken in the field of animal experimentation, even though there is a lot to be gained from the process. Therefore, a gold standard publication checklist (GSPC) for animal studies is presented in this paper. The items on the checklist have been selected on the basis of a literature analysis and the resulting scientific evidence that these factors are decisive in determining the outcome of animal studies. In order to make future systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies possible, to allow others to replicate and build on work previously published, diminish the number of animals needed in animal experimentation (reduction), improve animal welfare (refinement) and, above all, improve the quality of scientific papers on animal experimentation, this publication checklist needs to be used and followed. We have discussed and optimised this GSPC through feedback from interviews with experts in the field of animal experimentation. From these interviews, it became clear that scientists will adopt this GSPC when journals demand it. The GSPC was compared with the current instructions for authors from nine different journals, selected on the basis that they featured a high number of publications on animal studies. In general, the journals' demands for the description of the animal studies are so limited that it is not possible to repeat the studies, let alone carry out a systematic review. By using the GSPC for animal studies, the quality of scientific papers will be improved. The use of the GSPC and the concomitant improvement in the quality of scientific papers will also contribute to decreased variation and increased standardisation and, as a consequence, a reduction in the numbers of animals used and a more reliable outcome of animal studies. It is of major importance that journal editors become convinced of and adopt these recommendations, because only then will scientists follow these guidelines to the full extent.