EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review



Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review



Environmental Health Perspectives 121(9): 985-992



Results from animal toxicology studies are critical to evaluating the potential harm from exposure to environmental chemicals or the safety of drugs prior to human testing. However, there is significant debate about how to evaluate the methodology and potential biases of the animal studies. There is no agreed-upon approach, and a systematic evaluation of current best practices is lacking. We performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate instruments for assessing the risk of bias and/or other methodological criteria of animal studies. We searched Medline (January 1966-November 2011) to identify all relevant articles. We extracted data on risk of bias criteria (e.g., randomization, blinding, allocation concealment) and other study design features included in each assessment instrument. Thirty distinct instruments were identified, with the total number of assessed risk of bias, methodological, and/or reporting criteria ranging from 2 to 25. The most common criteria assessed were randomization (25/30, 83%), investigator blinding (23/30, 77%), and sample size calculation (18/30, 60%). In general, authors failed to empirically justify why these or other criteria were included. Nearly all (28/30, 93%) of the instruments have not been rigorously tested for validity or reliability. Our review highlights a number of risk of bias assessment criteria that have been empirically tested for animal research, including randomization, concealment of allocation, blinding, and accounting for all animals. In addition, there is a need for empirically testing additional methodological criteria and assessing the validity and reliability of a standard risk of bias assessment instrument.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 053886774

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23771496

DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1206389



Related references

Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of animal studies: omission of well-established methods. Environmental Health Perspectives 122(3): A66-A67, 2014

Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria: Krauth et al. Respond. Environmental Health Perspectives 122(3): A67-A67, 2014

Potential Pitfalls of Reporting and Bias in Observational Studies With Propensity Score Analysis Assessing a Surgical Procedure: A Methodological Systematic Review. Annals of Surgery (): -, 2016

Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals: a meta-epidemiological study. Anaesthesia 71(8): 955-968, 2016

Eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals: a methodological review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 21(6): 1052-1058, 2015

Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey. Bmj Open 5(9): E009368-E009368, 2016

Risk of bias of animal studies on regenerative procedures for periodontal and peri-implant bone defects - a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 38(12): 1154-1160, 2012

Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. Yearbook of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery 2007: 265-266, 2007

Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. Bmj 332(7543): 699-703, 2006

On the criteria used for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses addressing adverse effects. European Journal of Epidemiology 30(3): 249-250, 2015

Sponsorship-related outcome selection bias in published economic studies of triptans: systematic review. Medical Decision Making 32(2): 237-245, 2012

Assessing methodological quality of published papers. Pre-allocation bias in randomised controlled trials must be taken into account. Bmj 316(7125): 151-151, 1998

Instruments for assessing the risk of falls in acute hospitalized patients: a systematic review protocol. Journal of Advanced Nursing 69(1): 185-193, 2013

Reporting of various methodological and statistical parameters in negative studies published in prominent Indian Medical Journals: a systematic review. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 60(4): 362-365, 2015

Instruments for assessing the risk of falls in acute hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmc Health Services Research 13: 122-122, 2015