Preclinical Research Reporting in Shock: Room for Improvement

Area of Science:

• Biomedical Research
• Animal Research
• Scientific Reporting

Background:

• The ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines aim to improve the reporting of animal research.
• The Shock Society endorsed ARRIVE in 2012, but adherence has not been systematically evaluated.
• Previous assessments are limited, necessitating an updated evaluation of reporting standards.

Purpose of the Study:

• To systematically assess the quality of reporting and statistical practices in animal research published in Shock.
• To compare reporting standards in post-ARRIVE endorsement studies with pre-ARRIVE studies.
• To identify persistent deficiencies in research reporting and statistical methods.

Main Methods:

• A systematic assessment of 100 randomly selected animal-based research articles published in Shock between 2014 and 2018.
• Comparison with 40 animal-based research articles published before ARRIVE endorsement.
• Evaluation of reporting quality, statistical practices, and adherence to best-practice guidelines.

Main Results:

• Over 50% of surveyed papers lacked essential ethical oversight and animal descriptive information.
• Few studies reported key methodological details like sample size justification (10%), randomization (43%), or blinding (23%).
• Inadequate reporting of animal welfare information (anesthesia, analgesia, humane endpoints, euthanasia) was prevalent.

Conclusions:

• Despite ARRIVE guidelines endorsement, significant reporting deficiencies persist in Shock research.
• There is a critical need for improved transparency in research methods and experimental design skills.
• Enhancing reporting standards is crucial for improving reproducibility, replicability, and the overall quality of scientific research.