A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: A systematic review.

Irreproducibility of preclinical biomedical research has gained recent attention. It is suggested that requiring authors to complete a checklist at the time of manuscript submission would improve the quality and transparency of scientific reporting, and ultimately enhance reproducibility. Whether a checklist enhances quality and transparency in reporting preclinical animal studies, however, has not been empirically studied. Here we searched two highly cited life science journals, one that requires a checklist at submission (Nature) and one that does not (Cell), to identify in vivo animal studies. After screening 943 articles, a total of 80 articles were identified in 2013 (pre-checklist) and 2015 (post-checklist), and included for the detailed evaluation of reporting methodological and analytical information. We compared the quality of reporting preclinical animal studies between the two journals, accounting for differences between journals and changes over time in reporting. We find that reporting of randomization, blinding, and sample-size estimation significantly improved when comparing Nature to Cell from 2013 to 2015, likely due to implementation of a checklist. Specifically, improvement in reporting of the three methodological information was at least three times greater when a mandatory checklist was implemented than when it was not. Reporting the sex of animals and the number of independent experiments performed also improved from 2013 to 2015, likely from factors not related to a checklist. Our study demonstrates that completing a checklist at manuscript submission is associated with improved reporting of key methodological information in preclinical animal studies.

Characterization of investigators' approach to translational research: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how investigators approach their research programs along the translational research continuum. Many consider the translational continuum to be linear, with research beginning at the bench and concluding with research at the bedside or in the community. We aimed to understand if translational investigators approach and view their research in this fashion. METHODS: We conducted semistructured individual interviews with 16 graduates of the University of Pittsburgh's Multidisciplinary Clinical Research Scholars Program (KL2) in 2012. RESULTS: Our research revealed three characteristic models. The first model we called "linear" and represented the traditional approach. The second we called "holistic"; these investigators began with central research questions and sought to explore them in every direction of translation, not necessarily taking linear steps. The third model we called "technical"; in this model, investigators focused on a unique technology or methodology and applied it across multiple research contexts. CONCLUSION: This study found that there are multiple ways that translational investigators approach their research program. Better understanding of these models can help educators and mentors guide investigators so that they can be more productive in their clinical or translational research career.