Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation.
Kousholt, Birgitte S; Præstegaard, Kirstine F; Stone, Jennifer C; Thomsen, Anders Fick; Johansen, Thea Thougaard; Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel; Wegener, Gregers.
Afiliação
  • Kousholt BS; Department of Clinical Medicine, AUGUST, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
  • Præstegaard KF; Department of Clinical Medicine, AUGUST, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
  • Stone JC; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
  • Thomsen AF; Department of Clinical Medicine, AUGUST, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
  • Johansen TT; Department of Clinical Medicine, AUGUST, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
  • Ritskes-Hoitinga M; Department of Clinical Medicine, AUGUST, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
  • Wegener G; Faculty of Medical Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
PLoS One ; 17(11): e0275962, 2022.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36327216
ABSTRACT
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.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Projetos de Pesquisa / Experimentação Animal Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Projetos de Pesquisa / Experimentação Animal Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: PLoS One Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article