门静脉闭塞和联合肝分区和门静脉结扎用于分期肝切除术技术是肿瘤肝脏手术的焦点。涉及动物模型的研究对于研究肝再生的机制是必不可少的。在正确解释临床前发现的过程中,不准确的报告是一个重要的障碍。因此,我们进行了系统审查,以评估报告标准的现状,并评估动物研究中影响报告的潜在因素,重点是门静脉闭塞和/或将肝分区和门静脉结扎用于分期肝切除术技术。
在PubMed和OvidMEDLINE数据库中进行了系统评价。记录基线研究特征,使用研究中的动物:体内实验报告(ARRIVE)清单进行质量评估。
共纳入107篇研究文章进行综合评估。在亚组分析中,来自后到达时代的新报告和研究,来自欧洲的报告均与ARRIVE评分显著升高相关(P<0.05)。单变量回归分析证实这些因素是较高报告质量的预测因子。然而,在多变量分析中,仅ARRIVE时代的发表被认为是较高报告标准的单一独立预测因子(P=0.028ARRIVE总分第75百分位数;P=0.000ARRIVE总分中位数).
尽管在过去几年中,报告质量出现了改善趋势,这种效果显然是不够的。我们的结果强调需要采取进一步措施,提高各级规划的系统质量,执行,以及肝再生研究的临床前研究报告。
Portal vein occlusion and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy techniques are in the spotlight of oncological liver surgery. Research involving animal models is indispensable to study the mechanisms of liver regeneration. Inaccurate reporting acts as a significant barrier during the correct interpretation of preclinical findings. Hence, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the status quo of the reporting standards and to assess the potential factors influencing reporting in animal studies, which are focusing on portal vein occlusion and/or associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy techniques.
A systematic review was performed in the PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE databases. Baseline study characteristics were recorded, and quality assessment was performed using the Animals in Research: Reporting in vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) checklist.
A total of 107 research articles were included for the comprehensive assessment. In the subgroup analysis, newer reports and studies from the post-ARRIVE era, and reports from Europe were all associated with significantly higher ARRIVE scores (P < 0.05). Univariable regression analysis confirmed these factors as predictors of higher reporting quality. However, in the multivariable analysis, only publishing in the post-ARRIVE era has been found as single independent predictor of higher reporting standards (P = 0.028 post-ARRIVE total score 75th percentile; P = 0.000 post-ARRIVE total score median).
Although an improving trend has been observed in reporting quality over the past years, this effect was clearly insufficient. Our results emphasize the need for further measures to improve the methodical quality at all levels of planning, execution, and reporting of preclinical studies in liver regeneration research.