Randomization, blinding, data handling and sample size estimation in papers published in Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia in 2009 and 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate reporting of items indicative of bias and weak study design. STUDY DESIGN: Literature survey. POPULATION: Papers published in Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia. METHODS: Reporting of randomization, blinding, sample size estimation and data exclusion were compared for papers published separated by a 10 year interval. A reporting rate of more than 95% was considered ideal. The availability of data supporting results in a publicly accessible repository was also assessed. Selected papers were randomized and identifiers removed for review, with data from 59 (57 in 2009, two in 2008) and 56 (52 in 2019, four in 2018) papers analyzed. Items were categorized for completeness of reporting using a previously published operationalized checklist. Two reviewers reviewed all papers independently. RESULTS: Full reporting of randomization increased over time from 13.6% to 85.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 57.8-86.6%; p < 0.0001], as did sample size estimation (from 0% to 20%; 95% CI, 7.6-32.4%; p = 0.002). Reporting of blinding (49.2% and 50.0%; 95% CI, -18.3% to 20.0%; p = 1.0) and exclusions of samples/animals (39.0% and 50.0%; 95% CI, -8.8% to 30.8%; p = 0.3) did not change significantly. Data availability was low (2008/2009, zero papers; 2018/2019, two papers). None of the items studied exceeded the predetermined ideal reporting rate. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results indicate that reporting quality remains low, with a risk of bias.

Quality of reporting of prospective in vivo and ex vivo studies published in the Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care over a 10-year period (2009-2019).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting of key items associated with risk of bias and weak study design over a 10-year period. DESIGN: Literature survey. SETTING: Not applicable. ANIMALS: Not applicable. INTERVENTIONS: Papers published in the Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care between 2009 and 2019 were screened for inclusion. Inclusion criteria consisted of prospective experimental studies describing in vivo or ex vivo research (or both), containing at least 2 comparison groups. Identified papers had identifying information (publication date, volume and issue, authors, affiliations) redacted by an individual not involved with paper selection or review. Two reviewers independently reviewed all papers and applied an operationalized checklist to categorize item reporting as fully reported, partially reported, not reported, or not applicable. Items assessed included randomization, blinding, data handling (inclusions and exclusions), and sample size estimation. Differences in assessment between reviewers were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. A secondary aim was to document availability of data used to generate study results. Papers were screened for links to access data in the text and supporting information. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After screening, 109 papers were included. Eleven papers were excluded during full-text review, with 98 papers included in the final analysis. Randomization was fully reported in 31.6% of papers (31/98). Blinding was fully reported in 31.6% of papers (31/98). Inclusion criteria were fully reported in all papers. Exclusion criteria were fully reported in 60.2% of papers (59/98). Sample size estimation was fully reported in 8.0% of papers (6/75). No papers (0/99) made data freely available without a requirement to contact study authors. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial room for improvement in reporting of randomization, blinding, data exclusions, and sample size estimations. Evaluation of study quality by readers is limited by the low reporting levels identified, and the risk of bias present indicates a potential for inflated effect sizes.