Background: Preclinical studies often provide the evidence base for clinical studies. However, the design and reporting of preclinical trial results are inadequate, resulting in poor reproducibility and clinical translatability. We aimed to systematically evaluate the methodology and reporting quality of animal studies of acupuncture for cancer pain.
Methods: About 7 databases were searched for animal research articles on acupuncture for cancer pain from the beginning of the database to January 31, 2022. ARRIVE guidelines, STRICTA, and SYRCLE risk of bias tools were used to assess the reporting quality and risk of bias of the selected studies.
Results: A total of 18 studies were evaluated. Of the 22 items on the SYRCLE tool, only 6 items had a positive reporting rate of more than 50%. Of the 39 items in the ARRIVE guidelines, 14 were rated excellent, and the least frequently reported checklist items were 7. Out of the 17 STRICTA checklist items analyzed, 10 were considered appropriately reported in more than 80% of the studies, while 4 were correctly reported in less than 20%.
Conclusions: Some crucial points in the design, implementation, and reporting of the experiments included in the study were not well developed, which could significantly affect the clarity, reproducibility, and translatability of the experiments. There is a need to fully implement scientific tool guidelines for future experimental studies in order to improve the quality of preclinical studies and facilitate effective translation of their results to the clinic.
Keywords: ARRIVE; SYRCLE; acupuncture; cancer pain; methodological and reporting quality.