国内研究人员对动物实验设计方法与报告标准认知情况的调查

A survey of Chineseresearchers' knowledge of animal experimental design methods and reporting standards

目的了解SYRCLE动物实验风险评估工具和动物实验研究报告标准(ARRIVE指南和GSPC清单)在国内动物实验基础研究领域相关科研人员中的认知率和实际应用情况。方法采用自行设计的问卷在全国范围内对动物实验基础研究人员进行调查,调查内容包括调查对象基本信息、SYRCLE动物实验偏倚风险工具、ARRIVE指南和GSPC清单的认知率、动物实验偏倚风险控制因素认知率、已发表动物实验研究的报告现状等。采用Epi Data 3.1软件进行数据录入,Excel(Microsoft Excel 2013)进行统计描述,对分类资料采用例数(n)和百分比(%)进行统计描述,组间(研究生vs.高校教师/医生/研究人员)比较采用卡方检验。结果共发放问卷298份,回收272份,其中有效问卷266份(包括研究生118人、高校教师/医生/研究人员148人)。SYRCLE动物实验偏倚风险工具知晓率仅为15.8%,组间差异有统计学意义(P=0.003),大部分被调查者认为其条目1(85.7%,228/266)和条目8(81.6%,217/266)非常必要,超过半数的被调查者认为其条目3(78.9%,210/266)、条目6(59.4%,158/266)和条目7(64.7%,172/266)非常必要,低于半数的被调查者认为其条目2(40.2%,107)、条目4(30.8%,82/266)、条目5(41.4%,110/266)、条目9(49.6%,132)非常必要。ARRIVE指南和GSPC清单知晓率分别仅为9.4%和9.0%,且58.6%的被调查者认为当前已发表的动物实验相关文献存在报告不充分问题,且组间差异有统计学意义(P=0.004)。此外,大部分被调查者(77.4%,206/266)听说过系统评价/Meta分析这种研究方法,仅1/3左右的人阅读过动物实验系统评价/Meta分析研究,开展/参与和发表过动物实验系统评价/Meta分析研究的人则更少(6.0%,16/266;4.1%,11/266)。结论国内基础医学科研人员对SYRCLE动物实验风险评估工具、ARRIVE指南和GSPC清单的知晓率均较低,实际应用率更低。因此,我们建议有必要采取针对性措施推广与普及这些标准和规范,并尽快在国内相关期刊的"稿约"中的引入这些标准和规范,以提高研究人员、期刊编辑等对其的知晓率,最终促进动物实验方法和报告质量的提升。

A survey of Chineseresearchers'knowledge of animal experimental design methods and reporting standards[Abstract]Objective Understand the cognitive rate and practical application of SYRCLE animal experiment risk assessment tools and animal experimental research report standards(ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC)among relevant researchers in the field of Chinese animal experiment basic research.Methods The self-designed questionnaire was used to conduct a survey of basic animal research personnel nationwide.The survey included basic information of the respondents,SYRCLE animal experiment bias risk tools,ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC list cognition rate,and animal experiment bias risk control factors.Known rate,status report of published animal experimental research,etc.Data entry was performed using EpiData 3.1 software,and statistical description was performed by Excel(Microsoft Excel 2013).The number of cases(n)and percentage(%)of the classified data were statistically described.Inter-group(postgraduate vs.university teachers/doctors/researchers)Compare the chi-square test.Results A total of 298 questionnaires were distributed,and 272 responses were received,which included 266 valid questionnaires(from 118 current students and 148 research staff).Among the 266 survey participants,only 15.8%was aware of the SYRCLE's risk of bias tool,with significant difference between the two groups(P=0.003),and the awareness rates of ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC were only 9.4%and 9.0%,respectively;58.6%survey participants believed that the reports of animal experimental studies in Chinese literature were inadequate,with significant difference between the two groups(P=0.004).In addition,only approximately 1/3 of the survey participants had read systematic reviews and meta-analysis reports of animal experimental studies;only 16/266(6.0%)had carried out/participated in and 11/266(4.1%)had published systematic reviews/meta-analysis of animal experimental studies.Conclusions The awareness and use rates of SYRCLE's risk-of-bias tool,the ARRIVE guidelines,and the GSPC were low among Chinese basic medical researchers.Therefore,specific measures are necessary to promote and popularize these standards and specifications and to introduce these standards into guidelines of Chinese domestic journals as soon as possible to raise awareness and increase use rates of researchers and journal editors,thereby improving the quality of animal experimental methods and reports.