A. Öztürk, Ö. Ersan, Dişkapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Sep;478(9):1965-1970. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001335.
As in all fields of medicine, animal studies are widely performed in orthopaedics and have increased in number over time. However, it is not clear to what extent these studies provide a basis for future research or advancements in clinical science. Concerns about the reliability and translational ability of animal studies have been reported, and major orthopaedic journals and organizations are encouraging the reduction of unnecessary experiments on animals. QUESTION/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of animal studies conducted for orthopaedic research in Turkey were never published? And of those that were published, how long did it take to publish? (2) What proportion of those studies were published in journals with an Impact Factor of 2 or more? (3) What proportion of those published papers were never cited or cited only once? (4) What was the contribution to science of an animal euthanized for orthopaedic research in Turkey?
We reviewed all oral and poster presentations at the Turkish National Congress of Orthopaedics and Traumatology from 2009 to 2017 (retrieved from the archives of Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica), as well as all postgraduate theses in orthopaedics from 1991 to 2017 (retrieved from the archives of the National Thesis Center of the Council of Higher Education) to identify all orthopaedic studies that involved animals. We searched the keywords "animal studies," "experimental studies," and "orthopaedics" in these archives. We defined animal research as orthopaedic studies based on animal models. From this search and using that definition, 252 studies were identified. Of those, 4% (9) were excluded as they were thesis studies with no abstract in the archives. Thus, a total of 243 animal studies performed in Turkey were included for analysis in this retrospective study. The abstracts of these studies were examined to determine the study model (such as bone fracture models, tendon healing models, cartilage models) and number of euthanized animals. Between 1991 and 2017, 9412 vertebrate animals were euthanized for these studies. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and ORCID to determine whether these papers were subsequently published, in which journal, and how long after the initial presentation publication occurred. The Web of Science 2019 database was used to determine the Impact Factor of the journals, the total citation count of each study, and the mean annual citation for each study (citations per year). For purposes of this analysis, we divided journals into those with an Impact Factor of 2 or more, 4 or more, and those with an Impact Factor below 2. The mean annual citation per euthanized animal (citations per animal per year) was calculated to determine the contribution of a euthanized animal to science.
A total of 42% (101 of 243) of the animal studies in Turkey were never published. For all published studies, the mean time to publication was 2.2 ± 2.6 years (95% CI 1.7 to 2.6). The proportion of studies published in orthopaedic journals with an Impact Factor of 2 or more was 14% (34 of 243). Among the 142 published papers, 38% (54) were either never cited or were cited only once, and the mean citations per year was 1.1 ± 1.7 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.3). The mean citations per animal/year among the 142 published studies was 0.03 ± 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.04).
In the 243 theses and national congress presentations, 9412 animals were euthanized. Based on the low percentage of papers using animals that were euthanized and the very low proportion of studies published in higher-Impact Factor journals or garnering more than a single citation, in aggregate, little seems to have been gained from the loss of animal life. Future studies should try to replicate or refute our results in other countries.
Orthopaedic researchers should try to reduce their use of unnecessary animal studies, for example, by reporting on the use of the "3Rs" (replacement, reduction, and refinement) in the development of an animal study design, as well as through following universal guidelines so that a study might have a clinical impact. Researchers should not conduct an animal study until they are convinced that the expected results are quite likely to deliver substantial benefit to people or to advance science in a meaningful way; although this seems intuitive, our results suggest that this may not be taking place. Ethics committees in Turkey should consider more detailed questioning before approving animal studies. If our results are replicated elsewhere, then a broader look at how these approvals are conducted should be performed.
与所有医学领域一样，动物研究在骨科领域广泛开展，并且随着时间的推移数量不断增加。然而，目前尚不清楚这些研究在多大程度上为未来的研究或临床科学的进步提供了依据。人们对动物研究的可靠性和转化能力表示担忧，主要的骨科期刊和组织都在鼓励减少对动物的不必要实验。
问题/目的：（1）在土耳其进行的骨科研究中，有多少动物研究从未发表过？已发表的研究中，需要多长时间才能发表？（2）这些研究中有多少比例发表在影响因子为 2 或更高的期刊上？（3）这些发表的论文中有多少从未被引用或仅被引用过一次？（4）土耳其为骨科研究而处死的动物对科学有何贡献？
我们回顾了 2009 年至 2017 年土耳其骨科全国大会（从 Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 档案中检索）的所有口头和海报展示，以及 1991 年至 2017 年的所有骨科研究生论文（从高等教育委员会国家论文中心的档案中检索），以确定所有涉及动物的骨科研究。我们在这些档案中搜索了“动物研究”、“实验研究”和“骨科”等关键词。我们将基于动物模型的骨科研究定义为动物研究。通过这种搜索和定义，共确定了 252 项动物研究。其中，由于档案中没有摘要，9%（9 项）的论文被排除在外。因此，共有 243 项在土耳其进行的动物研究被纳入本回顾性研究进行分析。我们检查了这些研究的摘要，以确定研究模型（例如骨折模型、肌腱愈合模型、软骨模型）和处死的动物数量。在 1991 年至 2017 年期间，有 9412 只脊椎动物因这些研究而被处死。我们在 PubMed、Google Scholar、ResearchGate 和 ORCID 上搜索，以确定这些论文是否随后发表，发表在哪些期刊上，以及初始报告后多久发表。我们使用 Web of Science 2019 数据库来确定期刊的影响因子、每个研究的总引用数以及每个研究的平均年引用数（每年引用数）。出于本分析的目的，我们将期刊分为影响因子为 2 或更高、4 或更高以及影响因子低于 2 的期刊。通过计算每只处死动物的平均年引文数（每年每只动物的引文数）来确定处死动物对科学的贡献。
土耳其的动物研究中，有 42%（101 项）从未发表过。对于所有已发表的研究，平均发表时间为 2.2 ± 2.6 年（95%CI 1.7 至 2.6）。发表在骨科期刊的研究中，有 14%（34 项）的影响因子为 2 或更高。在 142 篇已发表的论文中，有 38%（54 篇）从未被引用或仅被引用过一次，平均每年引用数为 1.1 ± 1.7（95%CI 0.7 至 1.3）。在已发表的 142 篇研究中，每只处死动物的平均年引文数为 0.03 ± 0.04（95%CI 0.02 至 0.04）。
在 243 篇论文和全国大会报告中，有 9412 只动物被处死。根据使用动物进行研究的论文比例较低，以及发表在高影响因子期刊或获得超过一次引用的研究比例较低，总体而言，动物的生命似乎并没有带来多少收获。未来的研究应该尝试减少不必要的动物研究，例如，通过在动物研究设计中报告“3Rs”（替代、减少和优化）的使用，以及遵循通用指南，从而使研究具有临床意义。研究人员只有在确信预期结果很可能对人类有实质性益处或对科学有有意义的推进时，才应进行动物研究；尽管这似乎是直观的，但我们的研究结果表明，这可能没有发生。土耳其的伦理委员会在批准动物研究之前应该考虑更详细的问题。如果我们的结果在其他地方得到复制，那么应该对这些批准的方式进行更广泛的研究。
