|
| Item | Description | Grade |
|
| 1 | Title | (0) Inaccurate/nonconcise
(1) Concise/adequate |
|
| 2 | Abstract: either a structured summary of background, research objectives, key experiment methods, principal findings, and conclusion of the study or enough information to enable good understanding of the rationale for the approach (self-contained) | (1) Clearly inadequate
(2) Possibly accurate
(3) Clearly accurate |
|
| 3 | Introduction: background, experimental approach, and rationale | (0) Insufficient
(1) Possibly sufficient/some information
(2) Clearly meets/sufficient |
|
| 4 | Introduction: primary and secondary objectives | (0) Not clearly stated
(1) Clearly stated |
|
| 5 | Methods: ethical statement (nature of the review permission, relevant license, and national guidelines for the care and use of animals) | (1) Clearly insufficient
(2) Possibly sufficient
(3) Clearly sufficient |
|
| 6 | Methods: study design explained number of experimental and control groups, steps to reduce bias by allocation concealment, randomization, and binding | (1) Clearly insufficient
(2) Possibly sufficient
(3) Clearly sufficient |
|
| 7 | Methods: precise details of experimental procedure (i.e., how, when, where, and why) | (0) Clearly insufficient
(1) Possibly sufficient
(2) Clearly sufficient |
|
| 8 | Methods: experimental animal species, strains, sex, development stage, weight, and source of animals | (1) Clearly insufficient
(2) Possibly sufficient
(3) Clearly sufficient |
|
| 9 | Methods: housing and husbandry conditions (welfare related assessments and interventions include type of cage, bedding material, number of cage companions, temperature, light or dark cycle, and access to food and water) | (1) Clearly insufficient
(2) Possibly sufficient
(3) Clearly sufficient |
|
| 10 | Methods: total number of animals used in each experimental group and sample size calculation | (1) No
(2) Unclear/not complete
(3) Adequate/clear |
|
| 11 | Methods: allocation animals to experimental groups (randomization or matching), order in which animals were treated and assessed | (1) No
(2) Yes |
|
| 12 | Methods: outcomes (clearly defines the experimental methods to evaluate the prespecified outcomes) | (1) No
(2) Unclear/not complete
(3) Clear/complete |
|
| 13 | Methods: details of statistical methods and analysis | (0) No
(1) Unclear/not complete
(2) Adequate/clear |
|
| 14 | Results: baseline data (characteristic and health status of animals) | (0) No
(1) Yes |
|
| 15 | Results: numbers analyzed and explanation for any excluded | (0) No
(1) Unclear/not complete
(2) Adequate/clear |
|
| 16 | Results for each analysis with a measure of precision as standard error or confidence interval | (1) No
(2) Unclear/not complete
(3) Yes |
|
| 17 | Adverse events details and modification for reduction | (0) No
(1) Unclear/not complete
(2) Yes |
|
| 18 | Discussion: interpretation/scientific implication, limitations including animal model, implication for the 3 Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement) | (1) Clearly inadequate
(2) Possibly accurate
(3) Clearly accurate |
|
| 19 | Discussion: generalizability/translation | (0) Clearly inadequate
(1) Possibly adequate
(2) Clearly adequate |
|
| 20 | Statement of potential conflicts and funding disclosure | (0) No
(1) Unclear/not complete
(2) Yes |
|
