Assessment of completeness of reporting in intervention studies using livestock: an example from pain mitigation interventions in neonatal piglets

A O'Connor, R Anthony, L Bergamasco, JF Coetzee, RS Dzikamunhenga, AK Johnson, LA Karriker, JN Marchant-Forde, GP Martineau, ST Millman, EA Pajor, KMD Rutherford, M Sprague, MA Sutherland, E von Borell, SR Webb

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

3 Citations (Scopus)
1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Accurate and complete reporting of study methods, results and interpretation are essential components for any scientific process, allowing end-users to evaluate the internal and external validity of a study. When animals are used in research, excellence in reporting is expected as a matter of continued ethical acceptability of animal use in the sciences. Our primary objective was to assess completeness of reporting for a series of studies relevant to mitigation of pain in neonatal piglets undergoing routine management procedures. Our second objective was to illustrate how authors can report the items in the Reporting guidElines For randomized controLled trials for livEstoCk and food safety (REFLECT) statement using examples from the animal welfare science literature. A total of 52 studies from 40 articles were evaluated using a modified REFLECT statement. No single study reported all REFLECT checklist items. Seven studies reported specific objectives with testable hypotheses. Six studies identified primary or secondary outcomes. Randomization and blinding were considered to be partially reported in 21 and 18 studies, respectively. No studies reported the rationale for sample sizes. Several studies failed to report key design features such as units for measurement, means, standard deviations, standard errors for continuous outcomes or comparative characteristics for categorical outcomes expressed as either rates or proportions. In the discipline of animal welfare science, authors, reviewers and editors are encouraged to use available reporting guidelines to ensure that scientific methods and results are adequately described and free of misrepresentations and inaccuracies. Complete and accurate reporting increases the ability to apply the results of studies to the decision-making process and prevent wastage of financial and animal resources.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)660 - 670
JournalAnimal
Volume10
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusFirst published - 2015

Fingerprint

Livestock
Animal Welfare
Pain
Guidelines
Aptitude
Food Safety
Random Allocation
Checklist
Sample Size
Decision Making
Randomized Controlled Trials
Research

Bibliographical note

1024993

Keywords

  • Animal welfare
  • Data collection
  • Pain
  • Piglets
  • Reviews

Cite this

O'Connor, A., Anthony, R., Bergamasco, L., Coetzee, JF., Dzikamunhenga, RS., Johnson, AK., ... Webb, SR. (2015). Assessment of completeness of reporting in intervention studies using livestock: an example from pain mitigation interventions in neonatal piglets. Animal, 10(4), 660 - 670. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115002323
O'Connor, A ; Anthony, R ; Bergamasco, L ; Coetzee, JF ; Dzikamunhenga, RS ; Johnson, AK ; Karriker, LA ; Marchant-Forde, JN ; Martineau, GP ; Millman, ST ; Pajor, EA ; Rutherford, KMD ; Sprague, M ; Sutherland, MA ; von Borell, E ; Webb, SR. / Assessment of completeness of reporting in intervention studies using livestock: an example from pain mitigation interventions in neonatal piglets. In: Animal. 2015 ; Vol. 10, No. 4. pp. 660 - 670.
@article{c3328ed2e15c42fbb88bd86ae062afbb,
title = "Assessment of completeness of reporting in intervention studies using livestock: an example from pain mitigation interventions in neonatal piglets",
abstract = "Accurate and complete reporting of study methods, results and interpretation are essential components for any scientific process, allowing end-users to evaluate the internal and external validity of a study. When animals are used in research, excellence in reporting is expected as a matter of continued ethical acceptability of animal use in the sciences. Our primary objective was to assess completeness of reporting for a series of studies relevant to mitigation of pain in neonatal piglets undergoing routine management procedures. Our second objective was to illustrate how authors can report the items in the Reporting guidElines For randomized controLled trials for livEstoCk and food safety (REFLECT) statement using examples from the animal welfare science literature. A total of 52 studies from 40 articles were evaluated using a modified REFLECT statement. No single study reported all REFLECT checklist items. Seven studies reported specific objectives with testable hypotheses. Six studies identified primary or secondary outcomes. Randomization and blinding were considered to be partially reported in 21 and 18 studies, respectively. No studies reported the rationale for sample sizes. Several studies failed to report key design features such as units for measurement, means, standard deviations, standard errors for continuous outcomes or comparative characteristics for categorical outcomes expressed as either rates or proportions. In the discipline of animal welfare science, authors, reviewers and editors are encouraged to use available reporting guidelines to ensure that scientific methods and results are adequately described and free of misrepresentations and inaccuracies. Complete and accurate reporting increases the ability to apply the results of studies to the decision-making process and prevent wastage of financial and animal resources.",
keywords = "Animal welfare, Data collection, Pain, Piglets, Reviews",
author = "A O'Connor and R Anthony and L Bergamasco and JF Coetzee and RS Dzikamunhenga and AK Johnson and LA Karriker and JN Marchant-Forde and GP Martineau and ST Millman and EA Pajor and KMD Rutherford and M Sprague and MA Sutherland and {von Borell}, E and SR Webb",
note = "1024993",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1017/S1751731115002323",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "660 -- 670",
journal = "Animal",
issn = "1751-7311",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "4",

}

O'Connor, A, Anthony, R, Bergamasco, L, Coetzee, JF, Dzikamunhenga, RS, Johnson, AK, Karriker, LA, Marchant-Forde, JN, Martineau, GP, Millman, ST, Pajor, EA, Rutherford, KMD, Sprague, M, Sutherland, MA, von Borell, E & Webb, SR 2015, 'Assessment of completeness of reporting in intervention studies using livestock: an example from pain mitigation interventions in neonatal piglets', Animal, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 660 - 670. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115002323

Assessment of completeness of reporting in intervention studies using livestock: an example from pain mitigation interventions in neonatal piglets. / O'Connor, A; Anthony, R; Bergamasco, L; Coetzee, JF; Dzikamunhenga, RS; Johnson, AK; Karriker, LA; Marchant-Forde, JN; Martineau, GP; Millman, ST; Pajor, EA; Rutherford, KMD; Sprague, M; Sutherland, MA; von Borell, E; Webb, SR.

In: Animal, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2015, p. 660 - 670.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of completeness of reporting in intervention studies using livestock: an example from pain mitigation interventions in neonatal piglets

AU - O'Connor, A

AU - Anthony, R

AU - Bergamasco, L

AU - Coetzee, JF

AU - Dzikamunhenga, RS

AU - Johnson, AK

AU - Karriker, LA

AU - Marchant-Forde, JN

AU - Martineau, GP

AU - Millman, ST

AU - Pajor, EA

AU - Rutherford, KMD

AU - Sprague, M

AU - Sutherland, MA

AU - von Borell, E

AU - Webb, SR

N1 - 1024993

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Accurate and complete reporting of study methods, results and interpretation are essential components for any scientific process, allowing end-users to evaluate the internal and external validity of a study. When animals are used in research, excellence in reporting is expected as a matter of continued ethical acceptability of animal use in the sciences. Our primary objective was to assess completeness of reporting for a series of studies relevant to mitigation of pain in neonatal piglets undergoing routine management procedures. Our second objective was to illustrate how authors can report the items in the Reporting guidElines For randomized controLled trials for livEstoCk and food safety (REFLECT) statement using examples from the animal welfare science literature. A total of 52 studies from 40 articles were evaluated using a modified REFLECT statement. No single study reported all REFLECT checklist items. Seven studies reported specific objectives with testable hypotheses. Six studies identified primary or secondary outcomes. Randomization and blinding were considered to be partially reported in 21 and 18 studies, respectively. No studies reported the rationale for sample sizes. Several studies failed to report key design features such as units for measurement, means, standard deviations, standard errors for continuous outcomes or comparative characteristics for categorical outcomes expressed as either rates or proportions. In the discipline of animal welfare science, authors, reviewers and editors are encouraged to use available reporting guidelines to ensure that scientific methods and results are adequately described and free of misrepresentations and inaccuracies. Complete and accurate reporting increases the ability to apply the results of studies to the decision-making process and prevent wastage of financial and animal resources.

AB - Accurate and complete reporting of study methods, results and interpretation are essential components for any scientific process, allowing end-users to evaluate the internal and external validity of a study. When animals are used in research, excellence in reporting is expected as a matter of continued ethical acceptability of animal use in the sciences. Our primary objective was to assess completeness of reporting for a series of studies relevant to mitigation of pain in neonatal piglets undergoing routine management procedures. Our second objective was to illustrate how authors can report the items in the Reporting guidElines For randomized controLled trials for livEstoCk and food safety (REFLECT) statement using examples from the animal welfare science literature. A total of 52 studies from 40 articles were evaluated using a modified REFLECT statement. No single study reported all REFLECT checklist items. Seven studies reported specific objectives with testable hypotheses. Six studies identified primary or secondary outcomes. Randomization and blinding were considered to be partially reported in 21 and 18 studies, respectively. No studies reported the rationale for sample sizes. Several studies failed to report key design features such as units for measurement, means, standard deviations, standard errors for continuous outcomes or comparative characteristics for categorical outcomes expressed as either rates or proportions. In the discipline of animal welfare science, authors, reviewers and editors are encouraged to use available reporting guidelines to ensure that scientific methods and results are adequately described and free of misrepresentations and inaccuracies. Complete and accurate reporting increases the ability to apply the results of studies to the decision-making process and prevent wastage of financial and animal resources.

KW - Animal welfare

KW - Data collection

KW - Pain

KW - Piglets

KW - Reviews

U2 - 10.1017/S1751731115002323

DO - 10.1017/S1751731115002323

M3 - Review article

VL - 10

SP - 660

EP - 670

JO - Animal

JF - Animal

SN - 1751-7311

IS - 4

ER -