Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Research papers involving animal studies often display poor reporting standards, leading to lower study reproducibility. We aim to determine the difference in reporting animal studies regarding abdominal wall hernia repair with mesh placement, before and after the publication of ARRIVE-2010 (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. Furthermore, we aim to present the most up-to-date reporting quality using the updated ARRIVE-2020 as criteria.
METHODS: All animal studies concerning hernia repair with meshes were systematically searched. Articles published in the 5 years leading up to the ARRIVE-2010 (pre-ARRIVE) and articles within the last 5 years until the updated ARRIVE 2.0 (post-ARRIVE) were compared for overall species and specific species separately. Articles published last year were evaluated for presenting fully reported (sub)items.
RESULTS: The number of fully reported (sub)items per article was on average significantly higher for pre-ARRIVE than post-ARRIVE for overall species (mean (SD) = 14.0 (2.8) vs. 12.6 (2.5), P < 0.001). The same applies to rabbit (mean (SD) = 14.8 (2.6) vs. 12.6 (2.6), P = 0.001) and pig studies (mean (SD) = 14.5 (2.7) vs. 11.6 (2.6), P = 0.004), with no significance in rat studies (mean (SD) = 13.6 (2.9) vs. 12.9 (2.3), P = 0.076). Significance was found in several (sub)items between pre-ARRIVE and post-ARRIVE (n = 7, 3, 8, and 3 for overall species, rat, rabbit, and pig studies, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: General reporting quality of animal experiments has been improved markedly by ARRIVE guidelines. However, more improvements are required considering the arrival of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines.
METHODS: All animal studies concerning hernia repair with meshes were systematically searched. Articles published in the 5 years leading up to the ARRIVE-2010 (pre-ARRIVE) and articles within the last 5 years until the updated ARRIVE 2.0 (post-ARRIVE) were compared for overall species and specific species separately. Articles published last year were evaluated for presenting fully reported (sub)items.
RESULTS: The number of fully reported (sub)items per article was on average significantly higher for pre-ARRIVE than post-ARRIVE for overall species (mean (SD) = 14.0 (2.8) vs. 12.6 (2.5), P < 0.001). The same applies to rabbit (mean (SD) = 14.8 (2.6) vs. 12.6 (2.6), P = 0.001) and pig studies (mean (SD) = 14.5 (2.7) vs. 11.6 (2.6), P = 0.004), with no significance in rat studies (mean (SD) = 13.6 (2.9) vs. 12.9 (2.3), P = 0.076). Significance was found in several (sub)items between pre-ARRIVE and post-ARRIVE (n = 7, 3, 8, and 3 for overall species, rat, rabbit, and pig studies, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: General reporting quality of animal experiments has been improved markedly by ARRIVE guidelines. However, more improvements are required considering the arrival of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines.
摘要：
目的：涉及动物研究的研究论文通常显示较差的报告标准，导致较低的研究可重复性。我们的目的是确定关于腹壁疝修补术与网片放置的报告动物研究的差异，在ARRIVE-2010（动物研究：体内实验报告）指南发布之前和之后。此外，我们的目标是以更新的ARRIVE-2020为标准，提供最新的报告质量。
方法：系统搜索了所有关于疝修补术的动物研究。在ARRIVE-2010（ARRIVE前）之前的5年中发表的文章和在过去5年中直到更新的ARRIVE2.0（ARRIVE后）的文章分别针对总体物种和特定物种进行了比较。对去年发表的文章进行了评估，以介绍完全报告的（分）项目。
结果：ARRIVE前每篇文章的完整报告（子）项目数平均显着高于所有物种的ARRIVE后（平均值（SD）=14.0（2.8）与12.6(2.5),P<0.001)。这同样适用于兔子（平均值（SD）=14.8（2.6）与12.6(2.6),P=0.001）和猪研究（平均值（SD）=14.5（2.7）与11.6(2.6),P=0.004),在大鼠研究中没有显著性(平均值(SD)=13.6(2.9)与12.9(2.3),P=0.076)。在ARRIVE前和ARRIVE后的几个（子）项目中发现了意义（对于整个物种，n=7、3、8和3，rat,兔子,和猪研究，分别)。
结论：ARRIVE指南显著提高了动物实验的一般报告质量。然而,考虑到ARRIVE2.0指南的到来，还需要进行更多的改进。
方法：系统搜索了所有关于疝修补术的动物研究。在ARRIVE-2010（ARRIVE前）之前的5年中发表的文章和在过去5年中直到更新的ARRIVE2.0（ARRIVE后）的文章分别针对总体物种和特定物种进行了比较。对去年发表的文章进行了评估，以介绍完全报告的（分）项目。
结果：ARRIVE前每篇文章的完整报告（子）项目数平均显着高于所有物种的ARRIVE后（平均值（SD）=14.0（2.8）与12.6(2.5),P<0.001)。这同样适用于兔子（平均值（SD）=14.8（2.6）与12.6(2.6),P=0.001）和猪研究（平均值（SD）=14.5（2.7）与11.6(2.6),P=0.004),在大鼠研究中没有显著性(平均值(SD)=13.6(2.9)与12.9(2.3),P=0.076)。在ARRIVE前和ARRIVE后的几个（子）项目中发现了意义（对于整个物种，n=7、3、8和3，rat,兔子,和猪研究，分别)。
结论：ARRIVE指南显著提高了动物实验的一般报告质量。然而,考虑到ARRIVE2.0指南的到来，还需要进行更多的改进。
