Table 5 Methodological quality of animal research published in three critical care journals: rodent/rabbit versus nonrodent/nonrabbit subgroup

This study’s pre-defined primary outcome

 Animal strain, sex, and weight or age described

45 (83%) [71%, 91%]

7 (30%) [15%, 51%]

<0.001

Methods

 Animal numbers stated in methods

35 (65%) [51%, 76%]

21 (91%) [72%, 99%]

0.049

 Reporting randomization

25 (46%) [34%, 59%]

22 (96%) [77%, >99%]

<0.001

Results: animal descriptions reported

 Sex

48 (89%) [77%, 95%]

11 (48%) [29%, 67%]

<0.001

 Weight

38 (70%) [57%, 81%]

22 (96%) [77%, >99%]

0.011

 Source

30 (56%) [42%, 68%]

3 (13%) [4%, 33%]

<0.001

Results: outcomes reported

 Extra animals used in the results (that were not stated in methods)

27 (50%) [37%, 63%]

4 (17%) [6%, 38%]

0.007

 Animal numbers in the majority of tables and graphs

37 (69%) [55%, 79%]

9 (39%) [22%, 59%]

0.016

 Baseline characteristics of treatment groups described

9 (17%) [9%, 29%]

15 (65%) [45%, 81%]

<0.001

Discussion

 Limitation to external validity (to humans) mentioned

16 (33%) [19%, 43%]

16 (70%) [49%, 85%]

0.002

Composite quality outcomes

 Reporting randomization and any blinding, and numbers given with denominators for the majority of outcomes

10 (19%) [10%, 31%]

4 (17%) [6%, 38%]

ns

 Criteria above and meeting this study’s pre-defined primary outcome

8 (15%) [7%, 27%]

0 (0%) [0%, 13%]

ns