Risk of bias reporting in the recent animal focal cerebral ischaemia literature.
Risk of bias reporting in the recent animal focal cerebral ischaemia literature.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1042/cs20160722
复制
发表时间：
2017-10-15
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Sena E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bahor Z;Liao J;Macleod MR;Bannach-Brown A;McCann SK;Wever KE;Thomas J;Ottavi T;Howells DW;Rice A;Ananiadou S;Sena E
背景：如果研究没有报告减少偏倚风险的措施，体内研究的结果可能不太可靠。实验性脑卒中社区一直处于实施改革以改善报告的最前沿，但尚不清楚这些努力是否与持续改进有关。我们的目的首先是验证一种评估已发表作品偏倚风险的自动化工具，其次是评估最近两种中风实验模型文献中为降低偏倚风险而采取的措施的报告。方法：我们开发并使用文本分析方法来自动确定描述诱导大脑中动脉闭塞（MCAO）或模拟腔隙性卒中的动物实验的全文文章中减少偏倚风险的措施报告。结果：与先前的评估相比，MCAO文献中减少偏倚风险的措施报告有所改善，但腔隙性卒中文献中没有。MCAO文献中偏倚风险自动标注的准确率分别为86%（随机化）、94%（盲法）和100%（样本量计算）；在腔隙性卒中文献中，准确率分别为67%（随机化）、91%（盲法）和96%（样本量计算）。讨论：在动物研究建模脑卒中的报道中，特别是在腔隙性脑卒中的文献中，仍有很大的改进机会。此外，自动化工具在确定研究是否报告了结果的盲法评估方面表现良好，但在确定是否报告了随机化和样本量计算方面需要改进工具。
Background: Findings from in vivo research may be less reliable where studies do not report measures to reduce risks of bias. The experimental stroke community has been at the forefront of implementing changes to improve reporting, but it is not known whether these efforts are associated with continuous improvements. Our aims here were firstly to validate an automated tool to assess risks of bias in published works, and secondly to assess the reporting of measures taken to reduce the risk of bias within recent literature for two experimental models of stroke. Methods: We developed and used text analytic approaches to automatically ascertain reporting of measures to reduce risk of bias from full-text articles describing animal experiments inducing middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) or modelling lacunar stroke. Results: Compared with previous assessments, there were improvements in the reporting of measures taken to reduce risks of bias in the MCAO literature but not in the lacunar stroke literature. Accuracy of automated annotation of risk of bias in the MCAO literature was 86% (randomization), 94% (blinding) and 100% (sample size calculation); and in the lacunar stroke literature accuracy was 67% (randomization), 91% (blinding) and 96% (sample size calculation). Discussion: There remains substantial opportunity for improvement in the reporting of animal research modelling stroke, particularly in the lacunar stroke literature. Further, automated tools perform sufficiently well to identify whether studies report blinded assessment of outcome, but improvements are required in the tools to ascertain whether randomization and a sample size calculation were reported.