Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 13 October 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLoS Biology
- Vol. 13 (10), e1002273
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273
Abstract
The reliability of experimental findings depends on the rigour of experimental design. Here we show limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in a random sample of life sciences publications, significantly lower reporting of randomisation in work published in journals of high impact, and very limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in publications from leading United Kingdom institutions. Ascertainment of differences between institutions might serve both as a measure of research quality and as a tool for institutional efforts to improve research quality.Keywords
This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological DiseasesPLoS Biology, 2013
- High Impact = High Statistical Standards? Not Necessarily SoPLOS ONE, 2013
- A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical researchNature, 2012
- Accelerating drug discovery for Alzheimer's disease: best practices for preclinical animal studiesAlzheimer's Research & Therapy, 2011
- Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal ResearchPLoS Biology, 2010
- Neuroprotection by Dimethyloxalylglycine following Permanent and Transient Focal Cerebral Ischemia in RatsJournal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, 2010
- Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?PLoS Medicine, 2010
- Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using AnimalsPLOS ONE, 2009
- Empirical Evidence of Bias in the Design of Experimental Stroke StudiesStroke, 2008
- Recommendations for Standards Regarding Preclinical Neuroprotective and Restorative Drug DevelopmentStroke, 1999