Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, Floor 21, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom.
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School/Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Eur J Orthod. 2024 Aug 1;46(4). doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjae032.
The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines were introduced to improve the reporting of animal studies. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting adherence of orthodontic speciality animal studies in relation to ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. Associations between the reporting and study characteristics were explored.
An electronic database search was undertaken using Medline via PubMed (www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) to identify studies meeting the eligibility criteria published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions for the responses to each checklist item were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per ARRIVE item were calculated. A sum score was calculated by adding the responses (0 = not reported, 1 = inadequate reporting, 2 = adequate reporting) per item and sub-questions. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and study characteristics (year of publication, continent of authorship, type of centre, and number of authors) was performed.
Three hundred and eighty-four studies were analysed. Variability in the adequate reporting of the ARRIVE 2.0 guideline items was evident. In particular, in 32% of studies, there was a lack of reporting of the priori sample size calculation. Overall, the mean reporting score for the sample was 57.9 (SD 6.7 and range 34-74). There were no associations between score and study characteristics except for a weak association for year of publication with a small improvement over time (each additional year).
The reporting of animal studies relevant to the speciality of orthodontics is sub-optimal in relation to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. There was a tendency for the non-reporting of items pertaining to study sample size, eligibility, methods to reduce bias and interpretation/scientific implications. Greater awareness and reporting adherence to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines are required to reduce research waste involving animal models.
ARRIVE 2.0 指南的引入是为了提高动物研究报告的质量。本研究旨在评估正畸专业动物研究报告与 ARRIVE 2.0 指南的符合程度，并探讨报告与研究特征之间的关联。
通过 PubMed 中的 Medline 电子数据库检索，确定了 2018 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 12 月 31 日期间符合入选标准的研究。数据提取由两人独立进行。计算了每个清单项目的报告响应的描述性统计和频率分布。计算了每个 ARRIVE 项目的充分报告的平均值。通过对每个项目和子问题的响应（0=未报告，1=不充分报告，2=充分报告）进行加和，计算了总分。在此基础上，对综述评分与研究特征（发表年份、作者所在大陆、中心类型和作者数量）之间的单变量线性回归进行了探索性分析。
共分析了 384 项研究。ARRIVE 2.0 指南项目的充分报告存在明显差异。特别是，32%的研究缺乏事先的样本量计算报告。总体而言，样本的平均报告评分是 57.9（标准差 6.7，范围 34-74）。评分与研究特征之间没有关联，但与发表年份有微弱关联，随着时间的推移略有改善（每年增加）。
与 ARRIVE 2.0 指南相比，与正畸专业相关的动物研究报告的质量较差。存在不报告与研究样本量、纳入标准、减少偏倚的方法以及解释/科学意义相关的项目的趋势。为了减少涉及动物模型的研究浪费，需要提高对 ARRIVE 2.0 指南的认识和报告依从性。
