Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine ›› 2025, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (4): 496-507.DOI: 10.12300/j.issn.1674-5817.2025.017

• Guidelines for Comparative Medical Research and Reporting • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Recommendations for Standardized Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis of Animal Experiments

ZHENG Qingyong1,2,3(), YANG Donghua1,2,3,4(), MA Zhichao5, ZHOU Ziyu5, LU Yang6, WANG Jingyu1,7, XING Lina1,2,3, KANG Yingying1,2,3, DU Li8, ZHAO Chunxiang9, DI Baoshan10,11, TIAN Jinhui1,2,3()()   

  1. 1.Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    2.Key Laboratory of Evidence-based Medicine of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, China
    3.Research Unit of Evidence-Based Evaluation and Guidelines, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    4.Department of Public Health and Healthcare-associated Infection Management, Qinghai University Affiliated Hospital, Xining 810001, China
    5.The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    6.Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Jiangsu Provincial Hospital of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, Nanjing 210028, China
    7.Department of Pathophysiology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    8.The Third People's Hospital of Lanzhou, Lanzhou 730050, China
    9.The First People's Hospital of Lanzhou City, Lanzhou 730050, China
    10.First School of Clinical Medical, Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou 730000, China
    11.Department of Emergency, Shenzhen Longgang Central Hospital, Shenzhen 518116, China
  • Received:2025-02-05 Revised:2025-04-22 Online:2025-08-25 Published:2025-09-01
  • Contact: TIAN Jinhui

RichHTML

9

PDF (PC)

556

Abstract:

Animal experiments are an essential component of life sciences and medical research. However, the external validity and reliability of individual animal studies are frequently challenged by inherent limitations such as small sample sizes, high design heterogeneity, and poor reproducibility, which impede the effective translation of research findings into clinical practice. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis represent a key methodology for integrating existing evidence and enhancing the robustness of conclusions. Currently, however, the application of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in the field of animal experiments lacks standardized guidelines for their conduct and reporting, resulting in inconsistent quality and, to some extent, diminishing their evidence value. To address this issue, this paper aims to systematically delineate the reporting process for systematic reviews and meta-analysis of animal experiments and to propose a set of standardized recommendations that are both scientific and practical. The article's scope encompasses the entire process, from the preliminary preparatory phase [including formulating the population， intervention， comparison and outcome （PICO） question, assessing feasibility, and protocol pre-registration] to the key writing points for each section of the main report. In the core methods section, the paper elaborates on how to implement literature searches, establish eligibility criteria, perform data extraction, and assess the risk of bias, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis （PRISMA) statement, in conjunction with relevant guidelines and tools such as Animal Research： Reporting of in Vivo Experiments （ARRIVE) and a risk of bias assessment tool developed by the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE). For the presentation of results, strategies are proposed for clear and transparent display using flow diagrams and tables of characteristics. The discussion section places particular emphasis on how to scientifically interpret pooled effects, thoroughly analyze sources of heterogeneity, evaluate the impact of publication bias, and cautiously discuss the validity and limitations of extrapolating findings from animal studies to clinical settings. Furthermore, this paper recommends adopting the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to comprehensively grade the quality of evidence. Through a modular analysis of the entire reporting process, this paper aims to provide researchers in the field with a clear and practical guide, thereby promoting the standardized development of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of animal experiments and enhancing their application value in scientific decision-making and translational medicine.

Key words: Animal experiment, Systematic review, Meta-analysis, Evidence-based medicine, Reporting standards

CLC Number: