Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Methodological Quality in In Vivo Animal Studies of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

As a result of increased awareness of wide-spread methodological bias and obvious translational roadblocks in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) research, various checklists and guidelines were developed over the past decades. This systematic review assesses the overall methodological quality of preclini...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Translational stroke research 2020-12, Vol.11 (6), p.1175-1184
Main Authors: Grüter, Basil E., Croci, Davide, Schöpf, Salome, Nevzati, Edin, d’Allonzo, Donato, Lattmann, Jacqueline, Roth, Tabitha, Bircher, Benjamin, Muroi, Carl, Dutilh, Gilles, Widmer, Hans Rudolf, Plesnila, Nikolaus, Fandino, Javier, Marbacher, Serge
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animal welfare
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Biomedicine
Brain research
Cardiology
Conflicts of interest
Hemorrhage
Impact factors
Laboratory animals
Meta-analysis
Monkeys & apes
Neurology
Neurosciences
Neurosurgery
Quality standards
Reproducibility
Review Article
Stroke
Systematic review
Vascular Surgery
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:As a result of increased awareness of wide-spread methodological bias and obvious translational roadblocks in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) research, various checklists and guidelines were developed over the past decades. This systematic review assesses the overall methodological quality of preclinical SAH research. An electronic search for preclinical studies on SAH revealed 3415 potential articles. Of these, 765 original research papers conducted in vivo in mice, rats, rabbits, cats, dogs, pigs, goats, and non-human primates with a focus on brain damage related to delayed cerebral vasospasm and early brain injury met the inclusion criteria. We found methodological shortcomings still to prevail in preclinical SAH research. In addition, basic animal characteristics were typically well described but important technical parameters of SAH induction were often underreported. None of the species, models, or techniques used in preclinical SAH research was methodologically superior to the others. Methodological quality of preclinical SAH research was independent of the number of citations or impact factor of a publication. Consequently, we suggest the SAH research community should consider strategies to improve preclinical research quality in their field, such as public platforms to (pre)register preclinical experiments, consequent support of open science policies, stricter editorial (and reviewer) control of (pre)existing guidelines, and increased efforts in education and training of good laboratory practice for the next generation of researchers.
ISSN:1868-4483
1868-601X
DOI:10.1007/s12975-020-00801-4