bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/701110

The methodological quality of animal studies: A cross-sectional study based on the SYRCLEs risk of bias tool

Zhang, W.·Jiang, Y.·Shang, Z.·Zhang, N.·Tao, G.·Zhang, T.·Hu, K.·Li, Y.·Shi, X.·Zhang, Y.·Yang, J.·Ma, B.·Yang, K.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the methodological quality of animal studies published in China and abroad using the SYRCLEs risk of bias tool, and to provide references to improve the methodological quality of animal studies to encourage high quality preclinical studies.\n\nMethodsAn electronic search was performed in the Chinese Scientific Citation Database (CSCD) and Web of Science from 2014 to October 2018. Document screening and data extraction were performed independently by four researchers. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the SYRCLEs risk of bias tool. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS23.\n\nResultsA total of 2764 animal studies were included. Of the studies, 984 were published in English and 1780 were in Chinese. The citation frequency of more than 90% of the included studies was less than 5. The results of methodological quality assessment showed that 36.36% (8/22) of the sub-items were rated as \"low risk\" in more than 50% of the included studies, of which 75% (6/8) were rated as \"low risk\" in more than 80% of the included studies. A total of 59.09% (13/22) of the sub-items were rated as \"low risk\" in less than 30% of the included studies, of which 92.31% (12/13) were rated as \"low risk\" in less than 10% of the included studies. The incidence of \"low risk\" Chinese studies regarding performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias were lower than English studies. For foreign studies, more attention should be paid to selection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias.\n\nConclusionWe identified limitations in the methodological quality of animal experiment studies published in China and abroad. We therefore suggest that it is necessary to take targeted measures to popularize the SYRCLEs risk of bias tool to effectively improve the design and implementation of animal experiments, and guide study development.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zhang, W., Jiang, Y., Shang, Z., Zhang, N., Tao, G., Zhang, T., Hu, K., Li, Y., Shi, X., Zhang, Y., Yang, J., Ma, B., Yang, K.. 2019-07-12. The methodological quality of animal studies: A cross-sectional study based on the SYRCLEs risk of bias tool. https://doi.org/10.1101/701110

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2024

Trends in hoaxes of academic communication

Academic journals use peer review to weed out false information, but peer review and other editorial processes are normally confidential. Therefore, individuals sometimes create hoaxes to test whether editorial processes are as robust as they are claimed, or whether they are done at all. This article tracks the occurrence of hoaxes aimed at scholarly publishers and academic conferences since 2000. Since 2009, successful hoaxes usually appeared at a year of one or more a year, usually motivated by academics or journalists exposing so-called "predatory" journals. The apparent rise in the number of hoaxes reflects a lack of transparency in editorial processes at both legitimate and "predatory" journals. Reaction of academic communities to hoaxes varies widely depending on the perceived intent of the target of the hoaxes and whether the hoax demonstrates what the hoaxer claims.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2024

Capacity building needed to reap the benefits of access to biodiversity collections

SummaryO_LIThis research examines biodiversity specimens from two areas of the Caribbean to understand patterns of collection and the roles of the people involved. Using open data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and Wikidata, we aimed to uncover geographic and historical trends in specimen use. This study aims to provide concrete evidence to guide collaboration between collection-holding institutions and the communities that need their resources most. C_LIO_LIWe analysed biodiversity specimens from Montserrat and the Cayman Islands in three steps. First, we extracted specimen data from GBIF, disambiguated collector names, and linked them to unique biographical entries. Next, we connected collectors to their publications and specimens. Finally, we analysed the modern use of these specimens through citation data, mapping author affiliations and research themes. C_LIO_LISpecimens are predominantly housed in the Global North and were initially used by their collectors, whose focus was largely on taxonomy and biogeography. With digitisation, use of these collections remains concentrated in the Global North and covers a broader range of subjects, although Brazil and China stand out as significant users of digital collection data compared to other similar countries. C_LIO_LIThe availability of open digital data from collections in the Global North has led to a substantial increase in the reuse of these data across biodiversity science. Nonetheless, most research using these data is still conducted in the Global North. For the non-monetary benefits of digitisation to extend to the countries of origin, capacity building in the Global South is crucial, Open Data alone are insufficient. C_LI Societal Impact StatementDigital biodiversity data from herbaria and museums hold significant potential for nature conservation in the Global South, yet many regions, like Montserrat and the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean, are, for multiple reasons, unable to fully leverage this information. This lack of skills and resources limits local conservation efforts, showing the need for more investment in training, facilities, and expertise. Although past funding has helped improve coordination and build skills, our findings show that more work is needed to make sure conservation in these biodiverse areas can continue in the long term.

scientific communication and education↗