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 level...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2022-11, Vol.17 (11), p.e0275962-e0275962 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0275962 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | e0275962 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 17 |
| creator | Kousholt, Birgitte S Præstegaard, Kirstine F Stone, Jennifer C Thomsen, Anders Fick Johansen, Thea Thougaard Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel Wegener, Gregers |
| 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0275962 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2731704611</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A724977724</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_01d70fde7abe4d72a1c95cf318670b88</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A724977724</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-b1217a5111e6997d95074d859ecefff575b455f25b72c9b8244c3cb3b6bfcba53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk9tq3DAQhk1poWnaNyjUUCjNxW4l2bKsXhSW0MNCIJAeboUsj71aZMmR7DT79pGzbolLLopAx29-aX40SfIaozXOGP6wd6O30qx7Z2GNCKO8IE-SE8wzsioIyp4-mD9PXoSwR4hmZVGcJOMV9M4P2rbp9SiNHg6ptmnvQRlttZImlVZ3cYDbHrzuwA5x4SGA9Go3sQQhHqE6TnD5Md2kVg7a2d-6hjQcwgBdXKtI3kAYdHt_-DJ51kgT4NU8niY_v3z-cf5tdXH5dXu-uVipouDDqsIEM0kxxlBwzmpOEcvrknJQ0DQNZbTKKW0IrRhRvCpJnqtMVVlVVI2qJM1OkzdH3d64IGabgiAswwzlBcaR2B6J2sm96GOG0h-Ek1rcbzjfChntUQYEwjVDTQ1MVpDXjEisOFVNhsuCoaoso9an-bax6qBW0SsvzUJ0eWL1TrTuRvAiI4yzKPB-FvDueox2iU4HBcZIC26c341Znk-Zvf0HfTy7mWplTEDbxsV71SQqNozknLHYR2r9CBVbDZ1W8U81Ou4vAs4WAZEZ4HZo5RiC2H6_-n_28teSffeA3YE0wy44M05fJizB_Agq70Lw0Pw1GSMxlcQfN8RUEmIuiewON8n--w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2731704611</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Kousholt, Birgitte S ; Præstegaard, Kirstine F ; Stone, Jennifer C ; Thomsen, Anders Fick ; Johansen, Thea Thougaard ; Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel ; Wegener, Gregers</creator><contributor>Currie, Gillian</contributor><creatorcontrib>Kousholt, Birgitte S ; Præstegaard, Kirstine F ; Stone, Jennifer C ; Thomsen, Anders Fick ; Johansen, Thea Thougaard ; Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel ; Wegener, Gregers ; Currie, Gillian</creatorcontrib><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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275962</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Animal experimentation ; Animal research ; Bias ; Colleges & universities ; Conflicts of interest ; Evaluation ; Experimental research ; Experiments ; Health risks ; Internal validity ; Laboratory animals ; Mathematical analysis ; Medical research ; Medicine, Experimental ; Motivation ; Quality control ; Random sampling ; Research facilities ; Research institutions ; Statistical sampling ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-11, Vol.17 (11), p.e0275962-e0275962</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2022 Kousholt et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 Kousholt et al 2022 Kousholt et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-b1217a5111e6997d95074d859ecefff575b455f25b72c9b8244c3cb3b6bfcba53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-b1217a5111e6997d95074d859ecefff575b455f25b72c9b8244c3cb3b6bfcba53</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5315-284X ; 0000-0002-0081-0068 ; 0000-0001-8286-3624</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9632797/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9632797/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23847,27903,27904,53769,53771,79346,79347</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Currie, Gillian</contributor><creatorcontrib>Kousholt, Birgitte S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Præstegaard, Kirstine F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stone, Jennifer C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomsen, Anders Fick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johansen, Thea Thougaard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wegener, Gregers</creatorcontrib><title>Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation</title><title>PloS one</title><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.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Animal experimentation</subject><subject>Animal research</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Colleges & universities</subject><subject>Conflicts of interest</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Experimental research</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Internal validity</subject><subject>Laboratory animals</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Random sampling</subject><subject>Research facilities</subject><subject>Research institutions</subject><subject>Statistical sampling</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk9tq3DAQhk1poWnaNyjUUCjNxW4l2bKsXhSW0MNCIJAeboUsj71aZMmR7DT79pGzbolLLopAx29-aX40SfIaozXOGP6wd6O30qx7Z2GNCKO8IE-SE8wzsioIyp4-mD9PXoSwR4hmZVGcJOMV9M4P2rbp9SiNHg6ptmnvQRlttZImlVZ3cYDbHrzuwA5x4SGA9Go3sQQhHqE6TnD5Md2kVg7a2d-6hjQcwgBdXKtI3kAYdHt_-DJ51kgT4NU8niY_v3z-cf5tdXH5dXu-uVipouDDqsIEM0kxxlBwzmpOEcvrknJQ0DQNZbTKKW0IrRhRvCpJnqtMVVlVVI2qJM1OkzdH3d64IGabgiAswwzlBcaR2B6J2sm96GOG0h-Ek1rcbzjfChntUQYEwjVDTQ1MVpDXjEisOFVNhsuCoaoso9an-bax6qBW0SsvzUJ0eWL1TrTuRvAiI4yzKPB-FvDueox2iU4HBcZIC26c341Znk-Zvf0HfTy7mWplTEDbxsV71SQqNozknLHYR2r9CBVbDZ1W8U81Ou4vAs4WAZEZ4HZo5RiC2H6_-n_28teSffeA3YE0wy44M05fJizB_Agq70Lw0Pw1GSMxlcQfN8RUEmIuiewON8n--w</recordid><startdate>20221103</startdate><enddate>20221103</enddate><creator>Kousholt, Birgitte S</creator><creator>Præstegaard, Kirstine F</creator><creator>Stone, Jennifer C</creator><creator>Thomsen, Anders Fick</creator><creator>Johansen, Thea Thougaard</creator><creator>Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel</creator><creator>Wegener, Gregers</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5315-284X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0081-0068</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8286-3624</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221103</creationdate><title>Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation</title><author>Kousholt, Birgitte S ; Præstegaard, Kirstine F ; Stone, Jennifer C ; Thomsen, Anders Fick ; Johansen, Thea Thougaard ; Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel ; Wegener, Gregers</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-b1217a5111e6997d95074d859ecefff575b455f25b72c9b8244c3cb3b6bfcba53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Animal experimentation</topic><topic>Animal research</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Colleges & universities</topic><topic>Conflicts of interest</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Experimental research</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Internal validity</topic><topic>Laboratory animals</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Random sampling</topic><topic>Research facilities</topic><topic>Research institutions</topic><topic>Statistical sampling</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kousholt, Birgitte S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Præstegaard, Kirstine F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stone, Jennifer C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomsen, Anders Fick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johansen, Thea Thougaard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wegener, Gregers</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kousholt, Birgitte S</au><au>Præstegaard, Kirstine F</au><au>Stone, Jennifer C</au><au>Thomsen, Anders Fick</au><au>Johansen, Thea Thougaard</au><au>Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel</au><au>Wegener, Gregers</au><au>Currie, Gillian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2022-11-03</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e0275962</spage><epage>e0275962</epage><pages>e0275962-e0275962</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0275962</doi><tpages>e0275962</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5315-284X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0081-0068</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8286-3624</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2022-11, Vol.17 (11), p.e0275962-e0275962 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2731704611 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| subjects | Analysis Animal experimentation Animal research Bias Colleges & universities Conflicts of interest Evaluation Experimental research Experiments Health risks Internal validity Laboratory animals Mathematical analysis Medical research Medicine, Experimental Motivation Quality control Random sampling Research facilities Research institutions Statistical sampling Systematic review |
| title | Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T03%3A42%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reporting%20quality%20in%20preclinical%20animal%20experimental%20research%20in%202009%20and%202018:%20A%20nationwide%20systematic%20investigation&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Kousholt,%20Birgitte%20S&rft.date=2022-11-03&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e0275962&rft.epage=e0275962&rft.pages=e0275962-e0275962&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0275962&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA724977724%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2731704611&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A724977724&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_01d70fde7abe4d72a1c95cf318670b88&rfr_iscdi=true |