Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Health
Open Access

Human; Trial design; Therapeutic efficacy

Introduction

In an effort to raise the standard of conducting and reporting animalbased research in the same way that the CONSORT statement did for RCTs, the introduction of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines for conduct and scientific reporting of animal studies in 2010 represented a significant step forward. In this article, we contend that even though the ARRIVE criteria represent a significant advancement, the standards for reporting animal research still fall short of those of RCTs. The reliability of findings from animal research and how they are interpreted as a result are widely contested. In order for animal research to catch up, we proposed a number of changes to the ARRIVE standards. The general quality [1-4] of animal research should increase with widespread acceptance of these recommendations, increasing their applicability to humans.

The Consort and Arrive Guidelines: An Introduction

It is usually believed that well-designed and carried out human RCTs provide the highest calibre of scientific evidence for health care interventions (National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, 2009). The CONSORT statement, which has been endorsed by more than 400 journals and numerous significant editorial bodies, offers criteria for reporting the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of RCTs. The effectiveness and transparency of RCT reporting have significantly increased as a result of its implementation. Prior to the release of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010, however, the reporting of animal studies got relatively little attention. A review of 271 studies describing original research on rats, mice, and nonhuman primates conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States of America served as the impetus for the development of these guidelines. The findings gave a negative impression of the level of reporting in animal studies. The study’s hypothesis or purpose, the number of animals utilised, and the animals’ characteristics were only mentioned in 59% of the 271 papers. Only 13% of the papers analysed reported employing blinded outcome assessment or random allocation to treatment groups, and 30% of the papers did not clearly disclose statistical methodologies. In a comparable analysis of animal research, which was published in Cancer Research, just 28% of the studies mentioned randomly assigning animals to treatment groups, only 2% mentioned blinding observers to this assignment, and none mentioned sample size calculation techniques. Recent U.S. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke workshop to “better the reporting of preclinical studies in grant applications and publications” raised similar concerns about underreporting crucial study design and conduct components. The meeting report’s authors highlighted the likely effect that the discrepancy in reporting requirements between animal studies and human clinical trials has had on hindering efficient translation from bench to clinic. Nearly 100 scientific journals now have the ARRIVE rules in their instructions to authors as a result of 11 high-impact international journals reprinting them since 2010. The ARRIVE recommendations are generally consistent with the CONSORT statement and reflect the rising understanding of the need for more consistency and accountability in the conduct and reporting of animal-based research, but they fall short in some important respects. The main reporting components for well-executed RCTs that are not yet covered by the ARRIVE guidelines are highlighted in the following paragraphs after Table 1 presents the essential components of both sets of recommendations. In particular, we contend that more detailed instructions are required, particularly in relation to reporting of randomization, blinding, and sample size justification, to ensure that these recommendations are properly followed and achieve their ultimate goal of improving the design, conduct, and analysis of animal studies, and consequently their utility.

Materials and Method

Study context; inclusion/exclusion standards

The study environment and the eligibility standards used to choose trial participants must be fully described in order to meet the CONSORT requirements. The generalizability of the results must be evaluated using these criteria. Studies are less likely to be generalizable across a broad range of patients and demographics when the source population is constrained or the eligibility requirements are stringent. Additionally, participants in most RCTs tend to be in better condition than those who opt out, so findings may not apply to people in poorer health. In studies using animals, these issues are still pertinent. The majority of [5-9] animal trials use just one breed and strain, and the authors almost always mention this. Other inclusion and exclusion criteria, like age, sex, body mass index (BMI) scores, and health status, are frequently ambiguous or not recorded. There are currently only the barest minimums in the ARRIVE standards. Additionally, the majority of animal researchers are very clear about the “quality” of the animals they select to include, but they rarely discuss the quality standards they use or the number of animals they remove based on those standards. Results of animal research frequently have a “volunteer bias” similar to that of RCTs, If the researcher only chooses the healthiest animals to work with, the results could not even hold true for the same age, sex, and strain of animals.

Run-in period

Investigators frequently reject otherwise eligible participants who fail a run-in period from RCTs that assess efficacy (i.e., a period to test their short-term ability to adhere to the treatment regimen irrespective of group assignment). The goal is to increase the proportion of participants who receive the “full dose” of the intervention and return for ongoing follow-up evaluations. Similar “run-in” or acclimation periods are frequently used by researchers in animal experiments, most frequently to gauge how well each animal responds to a particular diet or surgical operation. The quantity and features of animals who fail the run-in are, however, rarely if ever mentioned by authors, even when they do mention such an acclimation period, Run-in or acclimation periods tend to limit generalizability while increasing internal validity of results.

Randomization

The technique of random allocation to treatment groups, which, when carried out correctly on an acceptable size sample, minimises confounding, distinguishes RCTs from observational research. Confounding is the one inherent potential drawback of all observational research. It is the [6] annoying effect of a third variable that hides the genuine link between exposure and outcome. Measured and unmeasured confounders are equally distributed among treatment groups thanks to randomization, leaving only the experimental therapy as a point of distinction.

Random assignment

The majority of RCTs today use a computer-generated random sequence of numbers to determine treatment status since random allocation must be truly random in order to be effective. In contrast, the randomization technique and its reporting are not given much attention in animal research. Kilkenny’s evaluation of 271 studies involving animals found that none of them adequately described the randomization process. The ARRIVE guidelines do not state explicitly that reporting of all information of the allocation technique, including randomization procedures, is required. The obligation for reporting may motivate animal research to use more reliable allocation techniques, reducing confounding.

Results and Discussion

Baseline characteristics reporting

Reporting a variety of baseline factors that could possibly confound the observed results, according to treatment assignment, is one way to assess the success of randomization. Despite the fact that the majority of the studies analysed by Kilkenny (2009) mentioned the sex (74%) and either the age or weight (76%) of the animals overall, these details were not broken down by treatment group. Animal [8] experimenters rarely, if ever, report anything other than a few distinct baseline features by treatment group. Although collecting baseline data is mandated by the ARRIVE guidelines, reporting according to treatment assignment— which is crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of randomization—is not. According to a survey conducted in 2009 by Kilkenny, 86% of animal experiments had no mention of blinding. While participant blindness is unquestionably less important in animal research than it is in RCTs, data assessor blindness to treatment assignment is. Even supposedly objective measurements like weight and blood pressure are often observed incorrectly. Small teams are frequently used in animal experiments, with postgraduate students or junior postdoctoral professionals handling treatment administration, outcome evaluation, and data analysis. It is against best practise and is likely to introduce further bias to have intervention staff also do outcome assessments and data analysis. In order to encourage researchers to use this crucial technique, we propose that ARRIVE guidelines require authors to describe how the employees who carried out randomization, gathered and cleaned data the analysis results were devoid of knowledge of the treatments used.

Sample size issues

Calculating the sample size for RCTs in advance ensures adequate statistical power. The computation is based on an arbitrary alpha level, a difference in result across treatment arms that is clinically significant or detectable, and the anticipated variance if the outcome is a continuous variable. A sample size big enough to ensure that there is no greater than a 20% chance that the study will miss an impact when one actually exists is the typical aim for power, which is typically set at 80%. An essential part of CONSORT is sample size justification before the RCT starts. It’s also critical to understand that, when data have been gathered, the confidence interval gives the precise information about the accuracy of estimates. Confidence intervals are used for research reporting whereas power estimates are used for study planning. Animal studies authors rarely explain how they determined the number of animals to be used in the study, in contrast to RCT authors, and they frequently do not include confidence intervals. Kilkenny’s evaluation found that none of the studies included any information on sample size calculations. Thankfully, the ARRIVE recommendations demand [9] that researchers “explain how the number of animals was determined.” However, we think that these guidelines should go a step further and require that researchers disclose how they came to their a priori sample size determinations. The alternative, increasing the number of animals until “statistical significance” is reached, is typically a highly biassed strategy because it disregards the concepts of blinding and random allocation. We also think that in addition to p values, animal researchers should offer confidence intervals; the effect estimate and its accuracy are the most crucial findings in any study. It doesn’t matter if the p value is less than a random number, like 0.05. Following data collection, the procedure entails analysing and eliminating specific data points based on biological plausibility and/or agreement with results from other participants. During the data-cleansing step, researchers should follow predetermined procedures, exposing outlier values and permitting conclusions (blinded to treatment group) on whether particular data points are incorrect. Reviewing the source data or, in the case of RCTs, getting in touch with the participant may make it easy to confirm some data queries. These procedures should be the same in animal experiments, with the exception that there is no analogy for contacting subjects. Even though it is perfectly conceivable, animal experimentalists rarely establish a priori standards for suitable ranges for outcome measures. Additionally, data cleansing is typically carried out by people who are not blind to the treatment group. It is essential to review potentially inaccurate data in a blinded fashion. Researchers should be required under ARRIVE to report the methods used to omit data points, including whether they were blind to treatment assignment.

Building on the arrive guidelines: concluding remarks and recommendations

In biomedical science, high-quality clinical and animal investigations are necessary to draw reliable conclusions about the origin, pathophysiology, prevention, and therapy of diseases. RCTs and whole animal studies both contribute to achieving these objectives. While RCTs prove the efficacy of therapies on clinical outcomes and can give crucial information to establish aetiology, animal studies have the capacity to uncover biological pathways and identify potential intervention techniques. It makes sense that both should follow the same standards of rigour for study design and analysis.

Acknowledgement

The authors appreciate VetScan for providing the preoperative CT pictures.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest, according to the authors.

Ethics Statement

This study did not need to be submitted to the local ethics and welfare council since all diagnostic studies and begun therapies were a regular component of clinical procedures.

1. Apata DF (2010) Effects of treatment methods on the nutritional value of cotton seed cake for laying hens.Agricultural sciences1:48-51

CrossRef

2. Dereje T, Mengistu U, Getachew A, Yoseph M (2015) A review of productive and reproductive characteristics of indigenous goats in Ethiopia.Livestock Research for Rural Development27:2015.

Google Scholar

3. Rathore KS, Pandeya D, Campbell LM, Wedegaertner TC, Puckhaber L, et al. (2020) Ultra-low gossypol cottonseed: Selective gene silencing opens up a vast resource of plant-based protein to improve human nutrition.Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences39:1-29.

Google Scholar, CrossRef

4. Sivilai B, Preston TR (2019) Rice distillers’ byproduct and biochar as additives to a forage-based diet for native Moo Lath sows during pregnancy and lactation.Livestock Research for Rural Development31:1-10

Google Scholar

5. Itodo JI, Ibrahim RP, Rwuaan JS, Aluwong T, Shiradiyi BJ, et al. (2020). The effects of feeding graded levels of whole cottonseed on semen characteristics and testicular profiles of Red Sokoto Bucks.Acta Scientiarum Animal Sciences43:1-10

Google Scholar, CrossRef

6. Taylor JD, Baumgartner A, Schmid TE, Brinkworth MH (2019) Responses to genotoxicity in mouse testicular germ cells and epididymal spermatozoa are affected by increased age. Toxicol Lett310:1-6.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, CrossRef

7. Hill D, Sugrue I, Arendt E, Hill C, Stanton C, et al. (2017) Recent advances in microbial fermentation for dairy and health.F1000Research6:1-5

Indexed at, Google Scholar, CrossRef

8. Soares Neto CB, Conceição AA, Gomes TG, de Aquino Ribeiro JA, Campanha RB, et al. (2021) A comparison of physical, chemical, biological and combined treatments for detoxification of free gossypol in crushed whole cottonseed.Waste and Biomass Valorization12:3965-3975.

Google Scholar, CrossRef

9. Vandu RA, Mbaya YP, Wafar RJ, Ndubuisi DI (2021) Growth and reproductive performance of rabbit bucks fed replacement levels of fermented Jatropha (Jatropha carcass) seed meal.Nigerian Journal of Animal Production48:33-46.