The Wound Reporting in Animal and Human Preclinical Studies Guidelines.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 CELL BIOLOGY
Nkemcho Ojeh, Nicole M Vecin, Irena Pastar, Susan W Volk, Traci Wilgus, Sarah Griffiths, Allison N Ramey-Ward, Vickie R Driver, Luisa A DiPietro, Lisa J Gould, Marjana Tomic-Canic
{"title":"The Wound Reporting in Animal and Human Preclinical Studies Guidelines.","authors":"Nkemcho Ojeh, Nicole M Vecin, Irena Pastar, Susan W Volk, Traci Wilgus, Sarah Griffiths, Allison N Ramey-Ward, Vickie R Driver, Luisa A DiPietro, Lisa J Gould, Marjana Tomic-Canic","doi":"10.1111/wrr.13232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Preclinical studies for wound healing disorders are an essential step in translating discoveries into therapies. Also, they are an integral component of initial safety screening and gaining mechanistic insights using an in vivo approach. Given the complexity of the wound healing process, existing guidelines for animal testing do not capture key information due to the inevitable variability in experimental design. Variations in study interpretation are increased by complexities associated with wound aetiology, wounding procedure, multiple treatment conditions, wound assessment, and analysis, as well as lack of acknowledgement of limitation of the model used. Yet, no standards exist to guide reporting crucial experimental information required to interpret results in translational studies of wound healing. Consistency in reporting allows transparency, comparative, and meta-analysis studies and avoids repetition and redundancy. Therefore, there is a critical and unmet need to standardise reporting for preclinical wound studies. To aid in reporting experimental conditions, The Wound Reporting in Animal and Human Preclinical Studies (WRAHPS) Guidelines have now been created by the authors working with the Wound Care Collaborative Community (WCCC) GAPS group to provide a checklist and reporting template for the most frequently used preclinical models in support of development for human clinical trials for wound healing disorders. It is anticipated that the WRAHPS Guidelines will standardise comprehensive methods for reporting in scientific manuscripts and the wound healing field overall. This article is not intended to address regulatory requirements but is intended to provide general guidelines on important scientific considerations for such studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":23864,"journal":{"name":"Wound Repair and Regeneration","volume":"33 1","pages":"e13232"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11621255/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wound Repair and Regeneration","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.13232","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Preclinical studies for wound healing disorders are an essential step in translating discoveries into therapies. Also, they are an integral component of initial safety screening and gaining mechanistic insights using an in vivo approach. Given the complexity of the wound healing process, existing guidelines for animal testing do not capture key information due to the inevitable variability in experimental design. Variations in study interpretation are increased by complexities associated with wound aetiology, wounding procedure, multiple treatment conditions, wound assessment, and analysis, as well as lack of acknowledgement of limitation of the model used. Yet, no standards exist to guide reporting crucial experimental information required to interpret results in translational studies of wound healing. Consistency in reporting allows transparency, comparative, and meta-analysis studies and avoids repetition and redundancy. Therefore, there is a critical and unmet need to standardise reporting for preclinical wound studies. To aid in reporting experimental conditions, The Wound Reporting in Animal and Human Preclinical Studies (WRAHPS) Guidelines have now been created by the authors working with the Wound Care Collaborative Community (WCCC) GAPS group to provide a checklist and reporting template for the most frequently used preclinical models in support of development for human clinical trials for wound healing disorders. It is anticipated that the WRAHPS Guidelines will standardise comprehensive methods for reporting in scientific manuscripts and the wound healing field overall. This article is not intended to address regulatory requirements but is intended to provide general guidelines on important scientific considerations for such studies.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Wound Repair and Regeneration
Wound Repair and Regeneration 医学-皮肤病学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
71
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Wound Repair and Regeneration provides extensive international coverage of cellular and molecular biology, connective tissue, and biological mediator studies in the field of tissue repair and regeneration and serves a diverse audience of surgeons, plastic surgeons, dermatologists, biochemists, cell biologists, and others. Wound Repair and Regeneration is the official journal of The Wound Healing Society, The European Tissue Repair Society, The Japanese Society for Wound Healing, and The Australian Wound Management Association.
×
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