For evaluation of quality evidence in systematic review and meta-analysis in animals, what methods are best or better indicated? GRADE pro, ARRIVE 2.0, or STAIR 2021? To assess the risk of bias, I proceeded with SYRCLE
GRADE, ARRIVE 2.0, and STAIR 2021 are all tools and guidelines that can be used to evaluate the quality of evidence in systematic reviews and meta-analyses involving animal studies.
GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) is a widely used tool for evaluating the quality of evidence in healthcare research, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It involves assessing the risk of bias, consistency, precision, and other factors to assign a grade of high, moderate, low, or very low quality to the evidence. GRADEpro is a software tool that can facilitate the use of GRADE in systematic reviews.
ARRIVE 2.0 (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) is a set of guidelines developed to improve the reporting of animal research studies, and to increase the transparency and reproducibility of such studies. While ARRIVE 2.0 does not directly assess the quality of evidence in systematic reviews, it can be used to assess the quality of individual studies included in the review.
STAIR 2021 (Strengthening the Reporting of Animal In Vivo Experiments) is another set of guidelines developed to improve the reporting of animal research studies, focusing on preclinical studies in biomedical research. Like ARRIVE 2.0, STAIR 2021 does not directly assess the quality of evidence in systematic reviews but can be used to assess the quality of individual studies included in the review.
In summary, the choice of which tool to evaluate the quality of evidence in systematic reviews and meta-analyses involving animal studies may depend on the specific context and research question. GRADEpro is a commonly used software tool for applying GRADE while, ARRIVE 2.0 and STAIR 2021 are guidelines that can be used to improve the reporting and quality of individual animal studies included in the review.
It depends on the type of question you are trying to answer. I would base the use of specific tools based on the type of study that you are targetting (eg intervention in experimental studies vs intervention in companion animals or observational studies....)
Risk of bias (quality) assessment of the included articles in a systematic review is different from assessing the overall strength of the body of evidence of the results.
depending on the study design that is included, there are multiple risk of bias assessment tools such as RoB.
For assessing the overall strength of the body of evidence of the results, there are tools such as Grade.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Statistical Techniques
- Meta-Analysis