Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 31
Filtrar
2.
BMC Vet Res ; 16(1): 242, 2020 Jul 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32660541

RESUMO

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

3.
Br J Pharmacol ; 177(16): 3617-3624, 2020 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32662519

RESUMO

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

4.
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab ; 40(9): 1769-1777, 2020 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32663096

RESUMO

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

5.
PLoS Biol ; 18(7): e3000410, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32663219

RESUMO

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.


Assuntos
Experimentação Animal , Guias como Assunto , Relatório de Pesquisa , Animais , Lista de Checagem
6.
PLoS Biol ; 18(7): e3000411, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32663221

RESUMO

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research is a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting is vital to this process; it allows readers to assess the reliability of the findings and repeat or build upon the work of other researchers. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) were developed in 2010 to help authors and journals identify the minimum information necessary to report in publications describing in vivo experiments. Despite widespread endorsement by the scientific community, the impact of ARRIVE on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. We have revised the ARRIVE guidelines to update them and facilitate their use in practice. The revised guidelines are published alongside this paper. This explanation and elaboration document was developed as part of the revision. It provides further information about each of the 21 items in ARRIVE 2.0, including the rationale and supporting evidence for their inclusion in the guidelines, elaboration of details to report, and examples of good reporting from the published literature. This document also covers advice and best practice in the design and conduct of animal studies to support researchers in improving standards from the start of the experimental design process through to publication.


Assuntos
Experimentação Animal , Guias como Assunto , Relatório de Pesquisa , Experimentação Animal/ética , Criação de Animais Domésticos , Animais , Intervalos de Confiança , Abrigo para Animais , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Publicações , Distribuição Aleatória , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Tamanho da Amostra
7.
Exp Physiol ; 105(9): 1459-1466, 2020 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32666546

RESUMO

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

8.
J Physiol ; 598(18): 3793-3801, 2020 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32666574

RESUMO

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the 'ARRIVE Essential 10,' which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the 'Recommended Set,' which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

9.
Stem Cells Transl Med ; 9(2): 158-168, 2020 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31746123

RESUMO

Regenerative stem cell-based therapies for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), the most common preterm birth complication, demonstrate promise in animals. Failure to objectively appraise available preclinical data and identify knowledge gaps could jeopardize clinical translation. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of preclinical studies testing cell-based therapies in experimental neonatal lung injury. Fifty-three studies assessing 15 different cell-based therapies were identified: 35 studied the effects of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) almost exclusively in hyperoxic rodent models of BPD. Exploratory NMAs, for select outcomes, suggest that MSCs are the most effective therapy. Although a broad range of promising cell-based therapies has been assessed, few head-to-head comparisons and unclear risk of bias exists. Successful clinical translation of cell-based therapies demands robust preclinical experimental design with appropriately blinded, randomized, and statistically powered studies, based on biological plausibility for a given cell product, in standardized models and endpoints with transparent reporting.

10.
Syst Rev ; 8(1): 260, 2019 11 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31735166

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: This systematic review was conducted to inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommendations on screening for thyroid dysfunction (TD). The review sought to answer key questions on the benefits and harms of screening for TD, patients' values and preferences for screening, and the benefits and harms of treating screen-detected TD. METHODS: This review followed Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care methods, which include the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The search strategy used for benefits and harms of screening and treatment was an update to the 2014 review by the US Preventive Services Task Force and searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. MEDLINE, Embase, ProQuest Public Health, and SCOPUS were searched for patients' values and preferences for screening. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, deaths due to cardiovascular diseases, fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, atrial fibrillation, fractures, quality of life, cognitive function, and harms due to TD treatment. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts according to pre-determined inclusion criteria and assessed the risk of bias for each study included. Strength and quality of the evidence was assessed for each outcome. A narrative synthesis was conducted due to heterogeneity of the included studies. RESULTS: No studies were found on screening for TD, treatment of subclinical hyperthyroidism, or patients' values and preferences for screening for TD. Twenty-two studies (from 24 publications) on the treatment of TD in patients with screen-detected subclinical hypothyroidism were included. Results from the included randomized controlled trials suggested no benefit of treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism for the large majority of outcomes. We found very low-quality evidence (from two cohort studies) for a small reduction in all-cause mortality among adults < 65 or 40-70 years who were treated for TD compared to those who were not. CONCLUSIONS: This review found moderate to very low-quality evidence on the benefits and harms of treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism, with most of the evidence showing no benefit of treatment.


Assuntos
Programas de Rastreamento , Doenças da Glândula Tireoide/diagnóstico , Adulto , Doenças Assintomáticas/terapia , Humanos , Vida Independente , Programas de Rastreamento/efeitos adversos , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Doenças da Glândula Tireoide/terapia
12.
PLoS One ; 14(5): e0215221, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31120888

RESUMO

Poor reporting quality may contribute to irreproducibility of results and failed 'bench-to-bedside' translation. Consequently, guidelines have been developed to improve the complete and transparent reporting of in vivo preclinical studies. To examine the impact of such guidelines on core methodological and analytical reporting items in the preclinical anesthesiology literature, we sampled a cohort of studies. Preclinical in vivo studies published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anaesthesia, and the British Journal of Anaesthesia (2008-2009, 2014-2016) were identified. Data was extracted independently and in duplicate. Reporting completeness was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research. Risk ratios were used for comparative analyses. Of 7615 screened articles, 604 met our inclusion criteria and included experiments reporting on 52 490 animals. The most common topic of investigation was pain and analgesia (30%), rodents were most frequently used (77%), and studies were most commonly conducted in the United States (36%). Use of preclinical reporting guidelines was listed in 10% of applicable articles. A minority of studies fully reported on replicates (0.3%), randomization (10%), blinding (12%), sample-size estimation (3%), and inclusion/exclusion criteria (5%). Statistics were well reported (81%). Comparative analysis demonstrated few differences in reporting rigor between journals, including those that endorsed reporting guidelines. Principal items of study design were infrequently reported, with few differences between journals. Methods to improve implementation and adherence to community-based reporting guidelines may be necessary to increase transparent and consistent reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.


Assuntos
Avaliação Pré-Clínica de Medicamentos/normas , Relatório de Pesquisa/normas , Analgésicos/uso terapêutico , Animais , Bases de Dados Factuais , Guias como Assunto , Dor/tratamento farmacológico
13.
F1000Res ; 8: 11, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30906535

RESUMO

Introduction: Globally, stroke is the second leading cause of death. Despite the burden of illness and death, few acute interventions are available to patients with ischemic stroke. Over 1,000 potential neuroprotective therapeutics have been evaluated in preclinical models. It is important to use robust evidence synthesis methods to appropriately assess which therapies should be translated to the clinical setting for evaluation in human studies. This protocol details planned methods to conduct a systematic review to identify and appraise eligible studies and to use a network meta-analysis to synthesize available evidence to answer the following questions: in preclinical in vivo models of focal ischemic stroke, what are the relative benefits of competing therapies tested in combination with the gold standard treatment alteplase in (i) reducing cerebral infarction size, and (ii) improving neurobehavioural outcomes? Methods: We will search Ovid Medline and Embase for articles on the effects of combination therapies with alteplase. Controlled comparison studies of preclinical in vivo models of experimentally induced focal ischemia testing the efficacy of therapies with alteplase versus alteplase alone will be identified. Outcomes to be extracted include infarct size (primary outcome) and neurobehavioural measures. Risk of bias and construct validity will be assessed using tools appropriate for preclinical studies. Here we describe steps undertaken to perform preclinical network meta-analysis to synthesise all evidence for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. This will be a novel use of this evidence synthesis approach in stroke medicine to assess pre-clinical therapeutics. Combining all evidence to simultaneously compare mutliple therapuetics tested preclinically may provide a rationale for the clinical translation of therapeutics for patients with ischemic stroke.  Dissemination: Review findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant scientific meetings to promote knowledge transfer. Registration: PROSPERO number to be submitted following peer review.


Assuntos
Modelos Animais de Doenças , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/terapia , Animais , Humanos , Metanálise como Assunto , Metanálise em Rede , Projetos de Pesquisa
14.
CMAJ ; 190(46): E1350-E1360, 2018 11 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30455270

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The Public Health Agency of Canada reviewed sexual transmission of HIV between serodiscordant partners to support examination of the criminal justice system response to HIV nondisclosure by the Department of Justice of Canada. We sought to determine HIV transmission risk when an HIV-positive partner takes antiretroviral therapy, has a suppressed viral load or uses condoms. METHODS: We conducted an overview and systematic review update by searching MEDLINE and other databases (Jan. 1, 2007, to Mar. 13, 2017; and Nov. 1, 2012, to Apr. 27, 2017, respectively). We considered reviews and studies about absolute risk of sexual transmission of HIV between serodiscordant partners to be eligible for inclusion. We used A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) for review quality, Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) instrument for study risk of bias and then the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence across studies. We calculated HIV incidence per 100 person-years with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assigned risk categories according to potential for and evidence of HIV transmission. RESULTS: We identified 12 reviews. We selected 1 review to estimate risk of HIV transmission for condom use without antiretroviral therapy (1.14 transmissions/100 person-years, 95% CI 0.56-2.04; low risk). We identified 11 studies with 23 transmissions over 10 511 person-years with antiretroviral therapy (0.22 transmissions/ 100 person-years, 95% CI 0.14-0.33; low risk). We found no transmissions with antiretroviral therapy and a viral load of less than 200 copies/mL across consecutive measurements 4 to 6 months apart (0.00 transmissions/100 person-years, 95% CI 0.00-0.28; negligible risk regardless of condom use). INTERPRETATION: Based on high-quality evidence, there is a negligible risk of sexual transmission of HIV when an HIV-positive sex partner adheres to antiretroviral therapy and maintains a suppressed viral load of less than 200 copies/mL measured every 4 to 6 months. Sexual transmissions of HIV have occurred when viral load was more than 200 copies/mL with antiretroviral therapy or condoms alone were used, although the risk remains low. These findings will help to support patient and clinician decision-making, affect public health case management and contact tracing, and inform justice system responses to HIV nondisclosure.


Assuntos
Fármacos Anti-HIV/uso terapêutico , Preservativos , Infecções por HIV/transmissão , Sexo Seguro , Carga Viral , Infecções por HIV/sangue , Infecções por HIV/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Risco , Resposta Viral Sustentada
16.
BMC Vet Res ; 13(1): 314, 2017 Nov 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29115951

RESUMO

A round table discussion was held during the LAVA-ESLAV-ECLAM conference on Reproducibility of Animal Studies on the 25th of September 2017 in Edinburgh. The aim of the round table was to discuss how to enhance the rate at which the quality of reporting animal research can be improved. This signed statement acknowledges the efforts that participant organizations have made towards improving the reporting of animal studies and confirms an ongoing commitment to drive further improvements, calling upon both academics and laboratory animal veterinarians to help make this cultural change.


Assuntos
Experimentação Animal/normas , Animais , Disseminação de Informação , Melhoria de Qualidade , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas
17.
Stem Cells Transl Med ; 6(12): 2079-2093, 2017 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29045045

RESUMO

Extreme prematurity is the leading cause of death among children under 5 years of age. Currently, there is no treatment for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), the most common complication of extreme prematurity. Experimental studies in animal models of BPD suggest that mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are lung protective. To date, no systematic review and meta-analysis has evaluated the preclinical evidence of this promising therapy. Our protocol was registered with Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies prior to searching MEDLINE (1946 to June 1, 2015), Embase (1947 to 2015 Week 22), Pubmed, Web of Science, and conference proceedings (1990 to present) for controlled comparative studies of neonatal animal models that received MSCs or cell free MSC-derived conditioned media (MSC-CM). Lung alveolarization was the primary outcome. We used random effects models for data analysis and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. We screened 990 citations; 25 met inclusion criteria. All used hyperoxia-exposed neonatal rodents to model BPD. MSCs significantly improved alveolarization (Standardized mean difference of -1.330, 95% confidence interval [CI -1.724, -0.94, I2 69%]), irrespective of timing of treatment, source, dose, or route of administration. MSCs also significantly ameliorated pulmonary hypertension, lung inflammation, fibrosis, angiogenesis, and apoptosis. Similarly, MSC-CM significantly improved alveolarization, angiogenesis, and pulmonary artery remodeling. MSCs, tested exclusively in hyperoxic rodent models of BPD, show significant therapeutic benefit. Unclear risk of bias and incomplete reporting in the primary studies highlights nonadherence to reporting standards. Overall, safety and efficacy in other species/large animal models may provide useful information for guiding the design of clinical trials. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2017;6:2079-2093.


Assuntos
Displasia Broncopulmonar/terapia , Transplante de Células-Tronco Mesenquimais/métodos , Animais , Transplante de Células-Tronco Mesenquimais/efeitos adversos , Roedores
18.
Nature ; 549(7670): 23-25, 2017 09 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28880300
19.
PLoS One ; 11(11): e0166733, 2016.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27855228

RESUMO

Incomplete reporting of study methods and results has become a focal point for failures in the reproducibility and translation of findings from preclinical research. Here we demonstrate that incomplete reporting of preclinical research is not limited to a few elements of research design, but rather is a broader problem that extends to the reporting of the methods and results. We evaluated 47 preclinical research studies from a systematic review of acute lung injury that use mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) as a treatment. We operationalized the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) reporting guidelines for pre-clinical studies into 109 discrete reporting sub-items and extracted 5,123 data elements. Overall, studies reported less than half (47%) of all sub-items (median 51 items; range 37-64). Across all studies, the Methods Section reported less than half (45%) and the Results Section reported less than a third (29%). There was no association between journal impact factor and completeness of reporting, which suggests that incomplete reporting of preclinical research occurs across all journals regardless of their perceived prestige. Incomplete reporting of methods and results will impede attempts to replicate research findings and maximize the value of preclinical studies.


Assuntos
Experimentação Animal , Relatório de Pesquisa , Animais , Linhagem Celular , Guias como Assunto , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Estados Unidos
20.
PLoS One ; 11(6): e0158002, 2016.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27352243

RESUMO

There are two components to the review of animal based protocols in Canada: review for the merit of the study itself, and review of the ethical acceptability of the work. Despite the perceived importance for the quality assurance these reviews provide; there are few studies of the peer-based merit review system for animal-based protocols for research and education. Institutional animal care committees (ACC)s generally rely on the external peer review of scientific merit for animal-based research. In contrast, peer review for animal based teaching/training is dependent on the review of pedagogical merit carried out by the ACC itself or another committee within the institution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the views of ACC members about current practices and policies as well as alternate policies for the review of animal based teaching/training. We conducted a national web-based survey of ACC members with both quantitative and qualitative response options. Responses from 167 ACC members indicated broad concerns about administrative burden despite strong support for both the current and alternate policies. Participants' comments focused mostly on the merit review process (54%) relative to the efficiency (21%), impact (13%), and other (12%) aspects of evaluation. Approximately half (49%) of the comments were classified into emergent themes that focused on some type of burden: burden from additional pedagogical merit review (16%), a limited need for the review (12%), and a lack of resources (expertise 11%; people/money 10%). Participants indicated that the current system for pedagogical merit review is effective (60%); but most also indicated that there was at least some challenge (86%) with the current peer review process. There was broad support for additional guidance on the justification, criteria, types of animal use, and objectives of pedagogical merit review. Participants also supported the ethical review and application of the Three Rs in the review process. A clear priority from participants in the survey was updating guidance to better facilitate the merit review process of animal-based protocols for education. Balancing the need for improved guidance with the reality of limited resources at local institutions will be essential to do this successfully; a familiar dilemma to both scientists and policy makers alike.


Assuntos
Comitês de Cuidado Animal , Modelos Animais , Modelos Educacionais , Revisão por Pares/normas , Experimentação Animal/normas , Canadá , Humanos , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Controle de Qualidade
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...