Submit a report


We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.



Genetically-modified animals as models of neurodevelopmental conditions: a review of systematic review reporting qualityuse asterix (*) to get italics
Emma Wilson, Gillian Currie, Malcolm Macleod, Peter Kind, and Emily S SenaPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p><strong>Objective</strong><br>Using genetically-modified animals to model neurodevelopmental conditions (NDCs) helps better our understanding of biology underlying these conditions. Animal research has unique characteristics not shared with clinical research, meaning systematic review methods must be adapted to this context. We aim to evaluate the quantity, characteristics, and reporting quality of systematic reviews which synthesise research using genetically-modified animals to model NDCs.</p> <p><strong>Methods</strong><br>On 23 January 2023, we searched PubMed, Embase, and the Web of Science Core Collection to identify systematic reviews of genetic NDC animal research where the modified gene was one of a list of 102 genes associated with NDCs identified through large-scale exome sequencing or FMR1, MECP2, or UBE3A. Two independent reviewers screened studies based on full text, and assessed the reporting quality of relevant reviews using an adapted version of the PRISMA checklist (PRISMA-Pre).</p> <p><strong>Results</strong><br>Twelve review publications met our criteria. We found mixed levels of reporting: items such as identifying the publication as a systematic review in the title, search strategies, and funding sources being well reported, and others such as protocol registration and data sharing less well reported. We also identified 19 review registrations via PROSPERO, most of which remain unpublished after their anticipated end dates.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong><br>Increased awareness of reporting guidelines may help authors increase the transparency and reproducibility of their systematic reviews.</p> <p><strong>Funding and registration</strong><br>This review was funded by a Simons Initiative for the Developing Brain PhD studentship (SFARI:#529085). The funder played no role in the development of this work. Protocol Registration:</p>
You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
Evidence synthesis; Reporting quality; Transparency; Neurodevelopmental conditions; Epilepsy; Autism; Intellectual disability; Animal models
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Medical Sciences
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe []
2023-11-22 10:26:44
Chris Chambers