Anesthesia and Monitoring in Small Laboratory Mammals Used in Anesthesiology, Respiratory and Critical Care Research: A Systematic Review on the Current Reporting in Top-10 Impact Factor Ranked Journals
Anesthesia and Monitoring in Small Laboratory Mammals Used in Anesthesiology, Respiratory and Critical Care Research: A Systematic Review on the Current Reporting in Top-10 Impact Factor Ranked Journals
复制标题
用于麻醉学、呼吸和重症监护研究的小型实验室哺乳动物的麻醉和监测：对影响因子排名前 10 的期刊当前报道的系统回顾
作者：
C. Uhlig;H. Krause;T. Koch;M. Gama de Abreu;P. Spieth
基本原理本研究旨在调查在影响因子排名前十的期刊上发表的小型实验室哺乳动物实验研究中麻醉和安乐死的报告质量。方法 根据 2012 年期刊引文报告的定义，对“麻醉学”、“重症监护医学”和“呼吸系统”类别中影响因子排名最高的 10 种期刊进行了描述性系统评价，并提取了数据。根据PICOS标准，纳入标准如下： 1）群体：小型实验室哺乳动物； 2）干预：任何形式的麻醉和/或安乐死； 3）比较：未指定； 4) 主要结局：麻醉类型、麻醉剂和安乐死类型；次要结局：动物特征、监测、机械通气、液体管理、术后疼痛治疗、动物护理批准、样本量计算和执行的干预措施； 5）研究：实验研究。每篇文章中对每项干预措施的麻醉、安乐死和监测进行了分析。结果 搜索产生了 845 篇文章，其中包含 1,041 项感兴趣的干预措施。在整个手稿中，我们发现动物特征和安乐死数据完整性方面的报告质量和频率都很差，而麻醉（732/1041，70.3％）和无生存干预（970/1041，93.2％）本身经常被报告。术前用药和神经肌肉阻滞剂分别在 169/732 (23.1%) 和 38/732 (5.2%) 干预中报告。疼痛手术期间（117/610，19.1%）和术后（38/364，10.4%）镇痛的报告频率较低。安乐死实践被报告为麻醉（348/501，69%）、经心灌注（37/501，8%）、二氧化碳（26/501，6%）、断头（22/501，5%）、放血（23/501，5%）、其他（25/501，5%）和未指定（20/501，结论 目前的系统评价显示，在小型实验室哺乳动物的整个实验研究中，麻醉和安乐死方法的报告不足。为了实现动物实验的可比性、质量和动物福利，这些措施在将实验结果转化为未来的临床应用时特别重要。
Rationale This study aimed to investigate the quality of reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia in experimental studies in small laboratory mammals published in the top ten impact factor journals. Methods A descriptive systematic review was conducted and data was abstracted from the ten highest ranked journals with respect to impact factor in the categories ‘Anesthesiology’, ‘Critical Care Medicine’ and ‘Respiratory System’ as defined by the 2012 Journal Citation Reports. Inclusion criteria according to PICOS criteria were as follows: 1) population: small laboratory mammals; 2) intervention: any form of anesthesia and/or euthanasia; 3) comparison: not specified; 4) primary outcome: type of anesthesia, anesthetic agents and type of euthanasia; secondary outcome: animal characteristics, monitoring, mechanical ventilation, fluid management, postoperative pain therapy, animal care approval, sample size calculation and performed interventions; 5) study: experimental studies. Anesthesia, euthanasia, and monitoring were analyzed per performed intervention in each article. Results The search yielded 845 articles with 1,041 interventions of interest. Throughout the manuscripts we found poor quality and frequency of reporting with respect to completeness of data on animal characteristics as well as euthanasia, while anesthesia (732/1041, 70.3%) and interventions without survival (970/1041, 93.2%) per se were frequently reported. Premedication and neuromuscular blocking agents were reported in 169/732 (23.1%) and 38/732 (5.2%) interventions, respectively. Frequency of reporting of analgesia during (117/610, 19.1%) and after painful procedures (38/364, 10.4%) was low. Euthanasia practice was reported as anesthesia (348/501, 69%), transcardial perfusion (37/501, 8%), carbon dioxide (26/501, 6%), decapitation (22/501, 5%), exsanguination (23/501, 5%), other (25/501, 5%) and not specified (20/501, 4%, respectively. Conclusions The present systematic review revealed insufficient reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia methods throughout experimental studies in small laboratory mammals. Specific guidelines for anesthesia and euthanasia regimens should be considered to achieve comparability, quality of animal experiments and animal welfare. These measures are of special interest when translating experimental findings to future clinical applications.