Abstract:Understand the cognitive rate and practical application of SYRCLE animal experiment risk assessment tools and animal experimental research report standards (ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC) among relevant researchers in the field of Chinese animal experiment basic research. Methods The self-designed questionnaire was used to conduct a survey of basic animal research personnel nationwide. The survey included basic information of the respondents, SYRCLE animal experiment bias risk tools, ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC list cognition rate, and animal experiment bias risk control factors. Known rate, status report of published animal experimental research, etc. Data entry was performed using EpiData 3.1 software, and statistical description was performed by Excel (Microsoft Excel 2013). The number of cases (n) and percentage (%) of the classified data were statistically described. Inter-group (postgraduate vs. university teachers/doctors/researchers) Compare the chi-square test. Results A total of 298 questionnaires were distributed, and 272 responses were received, which included 266 valid questionnaires (from 118 current students and 148 research staff).Among the 266 survey participants, only 15.8% was aware of the SYRCLE's risk of bias tool, with significant difference between the two groups (P=0.003), and the awareness rates of ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC were only 9.4% and 9.0%, respectively; 58.6% survey participants believed that the reports of animal experimental studies in Chinese literature were inadequate, with significant difference between the two groups (P=0.004). In addition, only approximately 1/3 of the survey participants had read systematic reviews and meta-analysis reports of animal experimental studies;only 16/266 (6.0%) had carried out/participated in and 11/266 (4.1%) had published systematic reviews/meta-analysis of animal experimental studies. Conclusions The awareness and use rates of SYRCLE's risk-of-bias tool, the ARRIVE guidelines, and the GSPC were low among Chinese basic medical researchers. Therefore, specific measures are necessary to promote and popularize these standards and specifications and to introduce these standards into guidelines of Chinese domestic journals as soon as possible to raise awareness and increase use rates of researchers and journal editors, thereby improving the quality of animal experimental methods and reports.

Interpretation on examples of SYRCLE' tool for interviewing risk of bias in animal experimentation

Does the publication of SYRCLE＇s risk of bias tool improve the methodological quality of animal experiments?

SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies

The methodological quality of animal studies: A cross-sectional study based on the SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool

A survey of Chineseresearchers' knowledge of animal experimental design methods and reporting standards

Survey of Basic Medical Researchers on the Awareness of Animal Experimental Designs and Reporting Standards in China

Systematic reviews protocol for animal intervention studies

[Introduction on 'assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies' in Systematic Review of Health-Care Intervention Programs Revised by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality].

A case study of the informative value of risk of bias and reporting quality assessments for systematic reviews

Methodological quality evaluation of animal experiments on traditional Chinese medicine formulas for glaucoma: a systematic review

Towards the automatic risk of bias assessment on randomized controlled trials: A comparison of RobotReviewer and humans

Tools to Assess Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Nursing Intervention in China: Global Implications of the Findings.

Use and Reporting of Risk of Bias Tools in 825 Systematic Reviews of Acupuncture: a Cross-Sectional Study.

[Introduction of a Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Environmental Exposure (ROBINS-E)].

Risk of bias tool in systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture in Chinese journals

[Risk Related to Bias Assessment: (4) Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Cluster-Randomized Control Trials (Rob2.0)].

Introduction to Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies

Development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of animal experiments in the field of traditional Chinese medicine

Methodological and reporting quality of systematic review/meta-analysis of animal studies

[Risk on Bias Assessment: (2) Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Individually Randomized, Parallel Group Trials (Rob2.0)].

Automating risk of bias assessment for clinical trials