University of Tasmania
Browse
152344 - Risk of bias reporting in the recent animal focal cerebral ischaemia literature.pdf (2.13 MB)

Risk of bias reporting in the recent animal focal cerebral ischaemia literature

Download (2.13 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 2023-05-21, 11:58 authored by Bahor, Z, Liao, J, Macleod, MR, Bannach-Brown, A, McCann, SK, Wever, KE, Thomas, James, Ottavi, TP, David Howells, Rice, A, Ananiadou, S, Sena, E

Background: Findings from in vivo research may be less reliable where studies do not report measures to reduce risks of bias. The experimental stroke community has been at the forefront of implementing changes to improve reporting, but it is not known whether these efforts are associated with continuous improvements. Our aims here were firstly to validate an automated tool to assess risks of bias in published works, and secondly to assess the reporting of measures taken to reduce the risk of bias within recent literature for two experimental models of stroke.

Methods: We developed and used text analytic approaches to automatically ascertain reporting of measures to reduce risk of bias from full-text articles describing animal experiments inducing middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) or modelling lacunar stroke.

Results: Compared with previous assessments, there were improvements in the reporting of measures taken to reduce risks of bias in the MCAO literature but not in the lacunar stroke literature. Accuracy of automated annotation of risk of bias in the MCAO literature was 86% (randomization), 94% (blinding) and 100% (sample size calculation); and in the lacunar stroke literature accuracy was 67% (randomization), 91% (blinding) and 96% (sample size calculation).

Discussion: There remains substantial opportunity for improvement in the reporting of animal research modelling stroke, particularly in the lacunar stroke literature. Further, automated tools perform sufficiently well to identify whether studies report blinded assessment of outcome, but improvements are required in the tools to ascertain whether randomization and a sample size calculation were reported.

History

Publication title

Clinical Science

Volume

131

Issue

20

Pagination

2525-2532

ISSN

0143-5221

Department/School

Tasmanian School of Medicine

Publisher

London

Place of publication

Medical Research Society

Rights statement

© 2017 The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Repository Status

  • Open

Socio-economic Objectives

Clinical health not elsewhere classified

Usage metrics

    University Of Tasmania

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC