PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

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.

Back

600

Title *

Genetically-modified animals as models of neurodevelopmental conditions: a review of systematic review reporting qualityuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

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"

Year *

2024

Picture

Abstract *

Objective 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. Methods 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). Results 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 We also identified 19 review registrations via PROSPERO, most of which remain unpublished after their anticipated end dates. Conclusion Increased awareness of reporting guidelines may help authors increase the transparency and reproducibility of their systematic reviews. Funding and registration 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: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/952QK.

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

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://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

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://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Evidence synthesis; Reporting quality; Transparency; Neurodevelopmental conditions; Epilepsy; Autism; Intellectual disability; Animal models

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Medical Sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

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

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2023-11-22 10:26:44

Recommender

Chris Chambers

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report