Virtual Reality in Biomedical Education in the sense of the 3Rs.

Article 23(2) of EU Directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes requires staff involved in the care and use of animals to be adequately educated and trained before carrying out procedures. Therefore, the 3Rs (refinement, reduction, and replacement) and knowledge of alternative methods should be part of the education and training itself. For this purpose, the digital learning concept "Virtual Reality (VR) in Biomedical Education" evolved, which successfully combines VR components with classical learning content. Procedures, such as anesthesia induction, substance application, and blood sampling in rats, as well as aspects of the laboratory environment were recorded in 360° videos. The generated VR teaching/learning modules (VR modules) were used to better prepare participants for hands-on training (refinement) or as a complete replacement for a live demonstration; thus, reducing the number of animals used for hands-on skills training (reduction). The current study evaluated users' experience of the VR modules. Despite little previous VR experience, participants strongly appreciated the VR modules and indicated that they believed VR has the potential to enhance delivery of procedures and demonstrations. Interestingly, participants with previous experience of laboratory animal science were more convinced about VR's potential to support the 3Rs principle, and endorsed its use for further educational purposes. In conclusion, VR appeared to be highly accepted as a learning/teaching method, indicating its great potential to further replace and reduce the use of animals in experimental animal courses.

Measurement challenges and causes of incomplete results reporting of biomedical animal studies: Results from an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Existing evidence indicates that a significant amount of biomedical research involving animals remains unpublished. At the same time, we lack standards for measuring the extent of results reporting in animal research. Publication rates may vary significantly depending on the level of measurement such as an entire animal study, individual experiments within a study, or the number of animals used. METHODS: Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 18 experts and qualitative content analysis, we investigated challenges and opportunities for the measurement of incomplete reporting of biomedical animal research with specific reference to the German situation. We further investigate causes of incomplete reporting. RESULTS: The in-depth expert interviews revealed several reasons for why incomplete reporting in animal research is difficult to measure at all levels under the current circumstances. While precise quantification based on regulatory approval documentation is feasible at the level of entire studies, measuring incomplete reporting at the more individual experiment and animal levels presents formidable challenges. Expert-interviews further identified six drivers of incomplete reporting of results in animal research. Four of these are well documented in other fields of research: a lack of incentives to report non-positive results, pressures to 'deliver' positive results, perceptions that some data do not add value, and commercial pressures. The fifth driver, reputational concerns, appears to be far more salient in animal research than in human clinical trials. The final driver, socio-political pressures, may be unique to the field. DISCUSSION: Stakeholders in animal research should collaborate to develop a clear conceptualisation of complete reporting in animal research, facilitate valid measurements of the phenomenon, and develop incentives and rewards to overcome the causes for incomplete reporting.

Web-based survey among animal researchers on publication practices and incentives for increasing publication rates.

OBJECTIVES: Publication bias, non-publication, and selective reporting of animal studies limit progress toward the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) that guide ethical animal testing, waste public resources, and result in redundant research, which collectively undermine the public's trust in scientific reliability. In this study, we aimed to 1) validate findings from a previous follow-up study by our team that examined the publication rates of animal studies from protocol to publication and 2) identify incentives for improving publication rates in animal research. METHODS: The researchers responsible for the animal proposals (n = 210) from our previous study were contacted as participants for a Web-based survey between October 2019 and April 2020. Question types varied between free text questions, answer options based on a 5-point Likert scale and closed yes/no questions. RESULTS: In total, 78 researchers responsible for 101 of 210 animal study proposals participated, yielding a response rate of 48.1%. Results showed that the publication rate increased from 67% in our follow-up study to 70%. According to a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = "not relevant" to 5 = "extremely relevant"), the most widely accepted suggestions for increasing publication rates were "Publication costs for open access journals are fully covered by funders or universities" (mean 4.02, SD 1.01), "Performance-based allocation of intramural funds for results reporting of animal research not supporting the initial hypothesis (including preprints and repositories)" (mean 3.37, SD 1.05), and "Researchers receive more information from scientific journals that also publish non-significant results" (mean 3.30, SD 1.02). CONCLUSION: While the extent of publication and publication practices have been thoroughly investigated for clinical trials, less data is available for animal research to date. Therefore, the study contributes in complementing the picture of publication practice in animal research. Suggestions from our survey may help improve the publication rates of animal studies.

Publication rates of research projects of an internal funding program of a university medical center in Germany: A retrospective study (2004-2013).

OBJECTIVES: Non-publication and publication bias are topics of considerable importance to the scientific community. These issues may limit progress toward the 3R principle for animal research, promote waste of public resources, and generate biased interpretations of clinical outcomes. To investigate current publishing practices and to gain some understanding of the extent to which research results are reported, we examined publication rates of research projects that were approved within an internal funding program of the Faculty of Medicine at a university medical center in Germany, which is exemplary for comparable research funding programs for the promotion of young researchers in Germany and Europe. METHODS: We analyzed the complete set (n = 363) of research projects that were supported by an internal funding program between 2004 and 2013. We divided the projects into four different proposal types that included those that required an ethics vote, those that included an animal proposal, those that included both requirements, and those that included neither requirement. RESULTS: We found that 65% of the internally funded research projects resulted in at least one peer-reviewed publication; this increased to 73% if other research contributions were considered, including abstracts, book and congress contributions, scientific posters, and presentations. There were no significant differences with respect to publication rates based on (a) the clinic/institute of the applicant, (b) project duration, (c) scope of funding or (d) proposal type. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore publication rates associated with early-career medical research funding. As >70% of the projects ultimately generated some form of publication, the program was overall effective toward this goal; however, non-publication of research results is still prevalent. Further research will explore the reasons underlying non-publication. We hope to use these findings to develop strategies that encourage publication of research results.

Veterinary drug administration in German veal calves: An exploratory study on retrospective data.

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to characterise the usage of antibiotic and non-antibiotic drugs with a withdrawal period in German veal calves in more detail. In Germany, the documentation of the usage of veterinary medicinal products in food producing animals is mandatory. In the German monitoring system antibiotic use in calves under the age of eight months is recorded irrespective of the production type and only some basic measures (50 % and 75 % percentiles of the entire distributions of the treatment frequencies) are published regularly. Within this study 57 farms were included contributing data of 169 veal calf groups with a total of 91,196 individual calves. To assess the drug use the treatment frequency (TF) was calculated. Most treatments were applied in the first weeks after arrival at the farm against respiratory and gastrointestinal disorders, accounting for 65.2 % and 28.6 % of the TF, respectively. Antibiotics account for 91 % of the TF. The antibiotics used most frequently were tetracyclines (35.6 %), beta-lactams (21.9 %), macrolides (12.7 %), sulphonamides (6.0 %) and trimethoprimes (5.3 %). Tetracyclines and polypeptides were administered as group treatments in more than half of the recorded applications. The number of antibiotic group treatments decreased considerably from the first to the second half of the fattening period. Logistic regression analyses revealed no statistically significant association between TF and groups size or mortality. Nevertheless, the results indicate a negative associated between TF and mortality. Concerning non-antibiotics mainly iron compounds, arylpropionic acids, mucolytics and avermectines were applied, accounting for about 5 % of the total TF. The present study provides basic data on antibiotic and non-antibiotic use in German veal calf production.

Publication rates in animal research. Extent and characteristics of published and non-published animal studies followed up at two German university medical centres.

Non-publication and publication bias in animal research is a core topic in current debates on the "reproducibility crisis" and "failure rates in clinical research". To date, however, we lack reliable evidence on the extent of non-publication in animal research. We collected a random and stratified sample (n = 210) from all archived animal study protocols of two major German UMCs (university medical centres) and tracked their results publication. The overall publication rate was 67%. Excluding doctoral theses as results publications, the publication rate decreased to 58%. We did not find substantial differences in publication rates with regard to i) the year of animal study approval, ii) the two UMCs, iii) the animal type (rodents vs. non-rodents), iv) the scope of research (basic vs. preclinical), or v) the discipline of the applicant. Via the most reliable assessment strategy currently available, our study confirms that the non-publication of results from animal studies conducted at UMCs is relatively common. The non-publication of 33% of all animal studies is problematic for the following reasons: A) the primary legitimation of animal research, which is the intended knowledge gain for the wider scientific community, B) the waste of public resources, C) the unnecessary repetition of animal studies, and D) incomplete and potentially biased preclinical evidence for decision making on launching early human trials. Results dissemination should become a professional standard for animal research. Academic institutions and research funders should develop effective policies in this regard.