Methodological quality evaluation of animal experiments on traditional Chinese medicine formulas for glaucoma: A systematic review

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Jiaxian Li , Xuqi Bi , Chengzhi Hou , Yu Jin , Mengqiu Shang , Xiaoyu Wu , Lina Liang
{"title":"Methodological quality evaluation of animal experiments on traditional Chinese medicine formulas for glaucoma: A systematic review","authors":"Jiaxian Li ,&nbsp;Xuqi Bi ,&nbsp;Chengzhi Hou ,&nbsp;Yu Jin ,&nbsp;Mengqiu Shang ,&nbsp;Xiaoyu Wu ,&nbsp;Lina Liang","doi":"10.1016/j.eujim.2024.102399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>This review aimed to evaluate the methodology and reporting quality of preclinical studies on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) intervention for glaucoma, and explore areas for improvement.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Eight Chinese and English databases were searched for animal experiment articles on TCM formulas for glaucoma. The risk of bias was evaluated using the SYRCLE's tool, the reporting quality using the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines and the GSPC checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Seventy-two articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for full-text review. According to the SYRCLE's tool, 7 (70%) of the 10 items had a low-risk rate of less than 50%, high-risk items were focused on selectivity bias, implementation bias, and measurement bias. Results of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines showed that 20 (53%) of the 38 sub-items had a high-agreement rate of less than 50%. Using the GSPC checklist, it was determined that 10 (53%) of the 19 sub-items had high-agreement rates of less than 50%. Randomization, blinding, ethical statements, housing and husbandry, animal care and monitoring, and protocol registration were low-agreement rate aspects of study reporting.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The methodology and reporting quality of animal studies on TCM formulas for glaucoma is generally low. It is advised to further refer to the SYRCLE's tool and reporting guidelines, to enhance the design, performance, and reporting of animal experiments to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of results.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11932,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Integrative Medicine","volume":"71 ","pages":"Article 102399"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382024000684/pdfft?md5=590f7d812de03664a14a5a0669e3915f&pid=1-s2.0-S1876382024000684-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Integrative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382024000684","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

This review aimed to evaluate the methodology and reporting quality of preclinical studies on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) intervention for glaucoma, and explore areas for improvement.

Methods

Eight Chinese and English databases were searched for animal experiment articles on TCM formulas for glaucoma. The risk of bias was evaluated using the SYRCLE's tool, the reporting quality using the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines and the GSPC checklist.

Results

Seventy-two articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for full-text review. According to the SYRCLE's tool, 7 (70%) of the 10 items had a low-risk rate of less than 50%, high-risk items were focused on selectivity bias, implementation bias, and measurement bias. Results of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines showed that 20 (53%) of the 38 sub-items had a high-agreement rate of less than 50%. Using the GSPC checklist, it was determined that 10 (53%) of the 19 sub-items had high-agreement rates of less than 50%. Randomization, blinding, ethical statements, housing and husbandry, animal care and monitoring, and protocol registration were low-agreement rate aspects of study reporting.

Conclusion

The methodology and reporting quality of animal studies on TCM formulas for glaucoma is generally low. It is advised to further refer to the SYRCLE's tool and reporting guidelines, to enhance the design, performance, and reporting of animal experiments to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of results.
中药配方治疗青光眼动物实验的方法学质量评价:系统综述
引言 本综述旨在评估中药干预青光眼临床前研究的方法学和报告质量,并探讨需要改进的地方。方法检索了八个中英文数据库中有关中药治疗青光眼配方的动物实验文章。结果72篇文章符合全文综述的纳入/排除标准。根据 SYRCLE 工具,10 个项目中有 7 个(70%)的低风险率低于 50%,高风险项目主要集中在选择性偏差、实施偏差和测量偏差上。ARRIVE 2.0 指南的结果显示,38 个子项目中有 20 个(53%)的高同意率低于 50%。使用 GSPC 核对表确定,19 个子项中有 10 个(53%)的高度一致率低于 50%。随机化、盲法、伦理声明、饲养和管理、动物护理和监测以及方案注册是研究报告中同意率较低的方面。建议进一步参考SYRCLE的工具和报告指南,加强动物实验的设计、执行和报告,以确保结果的可重复性和可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Integrative Medicine
European Journal of Integrative Medicine INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
102
审稿时长
33 days
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Integrative Medicine (EuJIM) considers manuscripts from a wide range of complementary and integrative health care disciplines, with a particular focus on whole systems approaches, public health, self management and traditional medical systems. The journal strives to connect conventional medicine and evidence based complementary medicine. We encourage submissions reporting research with relevance for integrative clinical practice and interprofessional education. EuJIM aims to be of interest to both conventional and integrative audiences, including healthcare practitioners, researchers, health care organisations, educationalists, and all those who seek objective and critical information on integrative medicine. To achieve this aim EuJIM provides an innovative international and interdisciplinary platform linking researchers and clinicians. The journal focuses primarily on original research articles including systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, other clinical studies, qualitative, observational and epidemiological studies. In addition we welcome short reviews, opinion articles and contributions relating to health services and policy, health economics and psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信