Skip to main content

Table 2 Reported methodological quality of animal research published in three critical care journals in 2012: Results section

From: The methodological quality of animal research in critical care: the public face of science

Criterion

Number of 77 publications meeting criterion,n(%) [95% confidence interval]

Animal descriptions reported

 

 Strain

67 (87%) [78%, 93%]

 Sex

59 (77%) [66%, 85%]

 Age

29 (38%) [28%, 49%]

 Developmental stage

27 (35%) [25%, 46%]

  Developmental stage when given

Neonate 5, juvenile 1, adult 21

 Weight

60 (78%) [67%, 86%]

 Animal sourcea

33 (43%) [32%, 54%]

 Baseline characteristics of treatment groups describedb

23 (31%) [21%, 41%]

Outcomes reported

 

 Number of animals in largest treatment group 10 or less

61 (79%) [69%, 87%]

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

31 (40%) [30%, 51%]

  Number of extra animals unclear

23 (74% of 31) [57%, 87%]

  Number of extra animals >100

12 (39% of 31) [24%, 56%]

 Numbers with denominators given when reporting the majority of outcomesc

35 (45%) [35%, 57%]

 No unaccounted animal numbers for the majority of outcomes

24 (31%) [22%, 42%]

 No animals excluded from analysis for the majority of outcomesd

20 (26%) [17%, 37%]

 Animal numbers provided in the majority of tables/graphs

46 (60%) [49%, 70%]

 Number of statistical comparisons reported

 

  >40

49 (64%) [52%, 74%]

  21 to 40

19 (25%) [16%, 35%]

  5 to 20

9 (12%) [6%, 21%]

 Any negative outcome reported in resultse

15 (20%) [12%, 30%]

 If applicable, toxicity or lack of toxicity to animals was mentioned

11 (22% of 49) [13%, 36%]

 No post hoc outcomes analyzedf

40 (52%) [41%, 63%]

  1. aAnimal sources were commercial, 29 (85% of 34) and local, 5 (15% of 34); bbaseline characteristics described were at least two demographic variables 1 (4% of 24) and at least two physiologic variables 19 (79% of 24); cfor the AR articles’ primary outcome (specified in five studies): numbers with denominators reported for 3 (60% of 5), no unaccounted numbers for 3 (60% of 5), and numbers in tables/graphs provided in 3 (60% of 5); dwhen some animals were excluded from most analyses, the number excluded (10, 18% of 57) and reasons (11, 19% of 57) were reported infrequently. For the AR articles’ primary outcome, an intention to treat analysis was used for 2 (40% of 5); efor the AR articles’ primary outcome, a negative result was reported in 0 (0% of 5); fnumber of post hoc outcomes: none in 40 (52% of 77), <5 in 25 (32% of 77), 5 to 10 in 8 (10% of 77), and >10 in 4 (5% of 77).