Introduction: Although there is enough pooled evidence supporting the positive association between family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) in first-degree relatives (FDRs) and the risk of CRC, synthesized data on its association with the risk of other colorectal neoplasia are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to systematically assess this issue. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase from database inception through May 9, 2024, to identify observational studies investigating the association between family history of CRC in FDRs and the risk of colorectal neoplasia (excepting CRC). Adenoma, nonadvanced adenoma (NAA), advanced adenoma (AA), and advanced neoplasia (AN) were further chosen as main outcomes because of data availability. Random-effects model was used for data synthesis. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of results. Results: Of 5,172 initial records screened, 75 studies (with 931,515 participants) were identified for analysis. Family history of CRC in FDRs was associated with increased risk of adenoma (pooled odds ratio [OR] 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.46-1.91), NAA (pooled OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.21-1.51), AA (pooled OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.46-1.88), and AN (pooled OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.44-1.73). The positive associations persisted in all examined subgroups. The risk of adenoma (pooled OR 4.18, 95% CI 1.76-9.91), AA (pooled OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.72-3.40), and AN (pooled OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.68-2.38) was more evident among individuals with 2 or more affected FDRs. Discussion: Family history of CRC is associated with increased risk of adenoma, NAA, AA, and AN totally, and in all available subgroups. The findings further strengthen the necessity and importance of an intensified screening strategy for individuals with a positive family history of CRC, which is very useful for related health resource allocation and policymaking.

Background In view of the inadequacy and incompleteness of currently-reported animal experiments and their overall poor quality, we retrospectively evaluated the reporting quality of animal experiments published in Chinese journals adhering to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Results The databases CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM were searched from inception until July 2018. Two appropriately-trained reviewers screened and extracted articles independently. The ARRIVE guidelines were used to assess the quality of the published reports of animal experiments. The compliance rate of every item was analyzed relative to their date of publication. A total of 4342 studies were included, of which 73.0% had been cited <= 5 times. Only 29.0% (1261/4342) were published in journals listed in the Chinese Science Citation Database. The results indicate that the compliance rate of approximately half of the sub-items (51.3%, 20/39) was less than 50%, of which 65.0% (13/20) was even less than 10%. Conclusions The reporting quality of animal experiments in Chinese journals is not at a high level. Following publication of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010, the compliance rate of the majority of its requirements has improved to some extent. However, less attention has been paid to the ethics and welfare of experimental animals, and a number of specific items in the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections continue to not be reported in sufficient detail. Therefore, it is necessary to popularize the ARRIVE guidelines, advocate researchers to adhere to them in the future, and in particular promote the use of the guidelines in specialized journals in order that the design, implementation, and reporting of animal experiments is promoted, to ultimately improve their quality.