Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation.
Lack of translation and irreproducibility challenge preclinical animal research. Insufficient reporting methodologies to safeguard study quality is part of the reason. This nationwide study investigates the reporting prevalence of these methodologies and scrutinizes the reported information's l...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275962 |
| _version_ | 1828129785635667968 |
|---|---|
| author | Birgitte S Kousholt Kirstine F Præstegaard Jennifer C Stone Anders Fick Thomsen Thea Thougaard Johansen Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga Gregers Wegener |
| author_facet | Birgitte S Kousholt Kirstine F Præstegaard Jennifer C Stone Anders Fick Thomsen Thea Thougaard Johansen Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga Gregers Wegener |
| author_sort | Birgitte S Kousholt |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Lack of translation and irreproducibility challenge preclinical animal research. Insufficient reporting methodologies to safeguard study quality is part of the reason. This nationwide study investigates the reporting prevalence of these methodologies and scrutinizes the reported information's level of detail. Publications were from two time periods to convey any reporting progress and had at least one author affiliated to a Danish University. We retrieved all relevant animal experimental studies using a predefined research protocol and a systematic search. A random sampling of 250 studies from 2009 and 2018 led to 500 publications in total. Reporting of measures known to impact study results estimates were assessed. Part I discloses a simplified two-level scoring "yes/no" to identify the presence of reporting. Part II demonstrates an additional three-level scoring to analyze the reported information's level of detail. Overall reporting prevalence is low, although minor improvements are noted. Reporting of randomization increased from 24.0% in 2009 to 40.8% in 2018, blinded experiment conduct from 2.4% to 4.4%, blinded outcome assessment from 23.6% to 38.0%, and sample size calculation from 3.2% to 14.0%. Poor reporting of details is striking with reporting of the random allocation method to groups being only 1.2% in 2009 and 6.0% in 2018. Reporting of sample size calculation method was 2.4% in 2009 and 7.6% in 2018. Only conflict-of-interest statements reporting increased from 37.6% in 2009 to 90.4%. Measures safeguarding study quality are poorly reported in publications affiliated with Danish research institutions. Only a modest improvement was noted during the period 2009-2018, and the lack of details urgently prompts institutional strategies to accelerate this. We suggest thorough teaching in designing, conducting and reporting animal studies. Education in systematic review methodology should be implemented in this training and will increase motivation and behavior working towards quality improvements in science. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T16:25:07Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-01d70fde7abe4d72a1c95cf318670b88 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T16:25:07Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-01d70fde7abe4d72a1c95cf318670b882022-12-22T04:14:11ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032022-01-011711e027596210.1371/journal.pone.0275962Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation.Birgitte S KousholtKirstine F PræstegaardJennifer C StoneAnders Fick ThomsenThea Thougaard JohansenMerel Ritskes-HoitingaGregers WegenerLack of translation and irreproducibility challenge preclinical animal research. Insufficient reporting methodologies to safeguard study quality is part of the reason. This nationwide study investigates the reporting prevalence of these methodologies and scrutinizes the reported information's level of detail. Publications were from two time periods to convey any reporting progress and had at least one author affiliated to a Danish University. We retrieved all relevant animal experimental studies using a predefined research protocol and a systematic search. A random sampling of 250 studies from 2009 and 2018 led to 500 publications in total. Reporting of measures known to impact study results estimates were assessed. Part I discloses a simplified two-level scoring "yes/no" to identify the presence of reporting. Part II demonstrates an additional three-level scoring to analyze the reported information's level of detail. Overall reporting prevalence is low, although minor improvements are noted. Reporting of randomization increased from 24.0% in 2009 to 40.8% in 2018, blinded experiment conduct from 2.4% to 4.4%, blinded outcome assessment from 23.6% to 38.0%, and sample size calculation from 3.2% to 14.0%. Poor reporting of details is striking with reporting of the random allocation method to groups being only 1.2% in 2009 and 6.0% in 2018. Reporting of sample size calculation method was 2.4% in 2009 and 7.6% in 2018. Only conflict-of-interest statements reporting increased from 37.6% in 2009 to 90.4%. Measures safeguarding study quality are poorly reported in publications affiliated with Danish research institutions. Only a modest improvement was noted during the period 2009-2018, and the lack of details urgently prompts institutional strategies to accelerate this. We suggest thorough teaching in designing, conducting and reporting animal studies. Education in systematic review methodology should be implemented in this training and will increase motivation and behavior working towards quality improvements in science.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275962 |
| spellingShingle | Birgitte S Kousholt Kirstine F Præstegaard Jennifer C Stone Anders Fick Thomsen Thea Thougaard Johansen Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga Gregers Wegener Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation. PLoS ONE |
| title | Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation. |
| title_full | Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation. |
| title_fullStr | Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation. |
| title_short | Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation. |
| title_sort | reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018 a nationwide systematic investigation |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275962 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT birgitteskousholt reportingqualityinpreclinicalanimalexperimentalresearchin2009and2018anationwidesystematicinvestigation AT kirstinefpræstegaard reportingqualityinpreclinicalanimalexperimentalresearchin2009and2018anationwidesystematicinvestigation AT jennifercstone reportingqualityinpreclinicalanimalexperimentalresearchin2009and2018anationwidesystematicinvestigation AT andersfickthomsen reportingqualityinpreclinicalanimalexperimentalresearchin2009and2018anationwidesystematicinvestigation AT theathougaardjohansen reportingqualityinpreclinicalanimalexperimentalresearchin2009and2018anationwidesystematicinvestigation AT merelritskeshoitinga reportingqualityinpreclinicalanimalexperimentalresearchin2009and2018anationwidesystematicinvestigation AT gregerswegener reportingqualityinpreclinicalanimalexperimentalresearchin2009and2018anationwidesystematicinvestigation |