当前位置:

网站首页>文章详情

动物实验系统评价中应用GRADE系统的实例解读

【PDF在线阅读】 【下载PDF】
  • Author:

  • Author Unit:

  • Keywords:

  • 中图分类号:

  • R4

摘要:

目的 通过对GRADE系统在动物实验系统评价中应用原理的解读,促进其正确理解和使
用。方法 基于示例文献,对GRADE系统在动物实验系统评价中应用原理进行详细解读。结果 示例文献
中就“病死率”指标而言,其在不精确性、发表偏倚和间接性方面需降级,证据质量评级为“极低”。
结论 推荐GRADE系统作为评估动物实验系统评价证据质量的工具,但今后还需要在一些条目,如:1)
如何计算OIS和定义临床相关阈值(不精确性);2)对于动物实验系统评价种内及种间的一致性(不一
致性)该如何进行细化和规范的细则等方面,还需进行探索和完善。

Abstract:

Objective We interpreted the application principles of GRADE approach in systematic review
of animal studies, which promote its correct understanding and using. Methods Based on the sample literature,
the application principle of GRADE system in approach in systematic review of animal studies was explained in
detail. Results In the sample literature, "mortality" indicators were downgraded in terms of inaccuracy, publication
bias, and indirection, and the quality of evidence was rated "very low". Conclusion The GRADE system is
recommended as a tool to evaluate the quality of evidence in systematic reviews of animal experiment, but there are
still some items, such as 1) how to calculate OIS and define the clinically relevant threshold (imprecision); 2) it is
still necessary to explore and improve how to refine and standardize the intra-species and inter-species consistency
(inconsistency) evaluation system of animal experiments in the future.

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金项目(81873184,81774146);兰州大 学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目(lzujbky-2018-96)

参考文献:

[1] Smith MM,Clarke EC,Little CB. Considerations for the design and
execution of protocols for animal research and treatment to improve
reproducibility and standardization:“DEPART well-prepared and
ARRIVE safely”[J]. 2017,25(3):354-63.
[2] Michael B. Bracken. Why Are So Many Epidemiology Associations
Inflated or Wrong? Does Poorly Conducted Animal Research Suggest
Implausible Hypotheses?[J]. 2009,19(3):0-224.
[3] Ellen Silbergeld,Roberta W Scherer. Evidence-based toxicology:Strait
is the gate, but the road is worth taking[J]. Altex,2013 30(1):67-73.
[4] Suh,Mina,Wikoff,Daniele,Lipworth, Loren,et al. Hexavalent chromium
and stomach cancer:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J].
Critical Reviews in Toxicology,2019,49(2):1-20.
[5] 赵霏,唐晓宇,寇城坤,等.动物实验系统评价/Meta分析的质量和报
告特征[J]. 中国循证医学杂志,v.18(8):109-15.
[6] 廖绪亮,姜彦彪,王欢,等. 如何提高动物实验系统评价质量—基于
动物实验系统评价与临床试验系统评价的比较研究[J]. 中国循
证心血管医学杂志,2019(5):526-9,533.
[7] 陈匡阳,王亚楠,赵雅琴,等. 国内动物实验系统评价/Meta分析研究
的现状分析[J]. 中国循证医学杂志,2015,15(4):47-51.
[8] 张婷,王欢,邢丹,等. GRADE在动物实验系统评价中的应用与挑战
[J]. 中国循证医学杂志,19(2):126-30.
[9] Hooijmans CR,RBM de Vries,M Ritskes-Hoitinga,et al. Facilitating
healthcare decisions by assessing the certainty in the evidence from
preclinical animal studies. PLoS One,2018.13(1):p.e0187271.
[10] Khatib Mahalaqua Nazli,Shankar Anuraj,Kirubakaran Richard,et
al. Effect of Ghrelin on Mortality and Cardiovascular Outcomes in
Experimental Rat and Mice Models of Heart Failure: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. Plos One,10(5):e0126697.
[11] Murray,Danielle K,Sacheli,et al. The effects of exercise on cognition
in Parkinson’s disease:a systematic review[J]. Translational Neurod
egeneration,3(1):5.
[12] Hooijmans Carlijn R,de Vries Rob BM,Rovers Maroeska M,et al.
The Effects of Probiotic Supplementation on Experimental Acute
Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. Plos
One,7(11):e48811.
[13] Woodruff,Tracey J,Sutton Patrice. The Navigation Guide Systematic
Review Methodology:A Rigorous and Transparent Method for
Translating Environmental Health Science into Better Health
Outcomes[J]. Environmental Health Perspectives,122(10):1007-14.
[14] Wei D,Tang K,Wang Q,et al. The use of GRADE approach in
systematic reviews of animal studies[J]. J Evid Based Med, 2016,9(2):
98-104.
[15] Gordon H,GuyattAndrew D,Oxman Shahnaz Sultan,et al. GRADE
guidelines:9.Rating up the quality of evidence[J]. 2011,64(12):1- 1316.
[16] 姜彦彪,陈静红,曾宪涛,等. SYRCLE动物实验系统评价研究方案
简介[J]. 中国循证心血管医学杂志,2019,11(2):145-7.
[17] 陶功财,张楠,尚志忠,等. 评估动物实验偏倚风险的SYRCLE工具
实例解读[J]. 中国循证心血管医学杂志,2019,11(3):292-5,300.
[18] Hooijmans CR,Rovers MM,Vries RBD,et al. SYRCLE’s risk of
bias tool for animal studies[J]. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based
Medicine,2014,14(1):43.
[19] Gordon H,GuyattAndrew D,OxmanRegina Kunz,et al. GRADE
guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision[J].
2011,64(12):1-1293.
[20] Zhang Yuan,Coello Pablo Alonso,Guyatt Gordon H,et al. GRADE
guidelines:20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance
of outcomes or values and preferences—inconsistency,imprecision,an
d other domains[J]. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology:2018.
[21] Gerben ter Riet,Daniel A. Korevaar,Marlies Leenaars,et al. Publication
Bias in Laboratory Animal Research:A Survey on Magnitude,Drivers,C
onsequences and Potential Solutions[J]. Plos One,2012,7(9):e43404.
[22] DA.K, H. L. and t.R. G. Systematic reviews and metaanalyses
of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal
experiments[J]. Lab Anim,2011,45(4):225-30.
[23] Sena,Emily S,van der Worp,H. Bart,Bath,Philip M. W,et al.
Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major
Overstatement of Efficacy[J]. Plos Biology,8(3):e1000344.
[24] Gordon H. Guyatt,Andrew D. Oxman,Regina Kunz,et al. GRADE
guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision[J].
64(12):0-1293.
[25] Anglemyer,Andrew T,Krauth,David,Bero,Lisa. Industry sponsorship
and publication bias among animal studies evaluating the effects of
statins on atherosclerosis and bone outcomes:a meta-analysis[J].
BMC Medical Research Methodology,15(1):12.
[26] Wieschowski S,Silva DS,Strech D. Animal Study Registries:Results
from a Stakeholder Analysis on Potential Strengths, Weaknesses,
Facilitators, and Barriers[J]. PLoS Biol,2016,14(11):e2000391.
[27] 赵霏,赵璐璐,闫琼,等. 细胞实验系统评价/Meta分析检索策略制定
和报告现状调查[J]. 中国循证心血管医学杂志,2019,11(8):914-8.
[28] Gordon H. Guyatt,Andrew D. Oxman,Regina Kunz,et al. GRADE
guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision[J].
64(12):0-1293.
[29] Gordon H. Guyatt,Andrew D. Oxman,Shahnaz Sultan,et al. GRADE
guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence[J]. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology,2010,64(12):0-1316.
[30] Gordon H. Guyatt,Andrew D. Oxman,Regina Kunz,et al. GRADE
guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision[J]. Journal
of Clinical Epidemiology,2011,64(12):0-1293.
  • 2008

  • 1

通讯地址:北京市东城区东四十条南门仓5号
电话: 237499284 邮编:100700
网址:www.ebcvm..org Email: ebcvm_cj@126.com

copyright © 《中国循证心血管医学杂志》编辑部
当您在使用本网站投稿遇到困难时,
请直接将稿件投送到编辑部邮箱ebcvm_cj@126.com