Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19956596›Full record

ArticlePloS one2009

Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals.

Carol Kilkenny, Nick Parsons, Ed Kadyszewski, Michael F W Festing, Innes C Cuthill, Derek Fry, Jane Hutton, Douglas G Altman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 366 papers, 42 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
366citing papers in PubMed, 42 pooled it
43.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

366 citing papers in PubMed, 42 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 867 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Role of Exosomes in Dermal Wound Healing: A Systematic Review.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2022
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

306 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Carol KilkennyThe National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, London, United Kingdom. carol.kilkenny@nc3rs.org.uk
Nick Parsons
Ed Kadyszewski
Michael F W Festing
Innes C Cuthill
Derek Fry
Jane Hutton
Douglas G Altman
University of Warwick · GBHome Office · GBNational Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research · GBPfizer (United States) · USUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For scientific, ethical and economic reasons, experiments involving animals should be appropriately designed, correctly analysed and transparently reported. This increases the scientific validity of the results, and maximises the knowledge gained from each experiment. A minimum amount of relevant information must be included in scientific publications to ensure that the methods and results of a study can be reviewed, analysed and repeated. Omitting essential information can raise scientific and ethical concerns. We report the findings of a systematic survey of reporting, experimental design and statistical analysis in published biomedical research using laboratory animals. Medline and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting research on live rats, mice and non-human primates carried out in UK and US publicly funded research establishments. Detailed information was collected from 271 publications, about the objective or hypothesis of the study, the number, sex, age and/or weight of animals used, and experimental and statistical methods. Only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used. Appropriate and efficient experimental design is a critical component of high-quality science. Most of the papers surveyed did not use randomisation (87%) or blinding (86%), to reduce bias in animal selection and outcome assessment. Only 70% of the publications that used statistical methods described their methods and presented the results with a measure of error or variability. This survey has identified a number of issues that need to be addressed in order to improve experimental design and reporting in publications describing research using animals. Scientific publication is a powerful and important source of information; the authors of scientific publications therefore have a responsibility to describe their methods and results comprehensively, accurately and transparently, and peer reviewers and journal editors share the responsibility to ensure that published studies fulfil these criteria.

Indexed as

Research DesignAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalFemaleHumansMaleMEDLINEMicePeer Review, ResearchPeriodicals as TopicRatsResearchUnited KingdomUnited States

Identifiers

PMID19956596
PMCPMC2779358
OpenAlexW2042190008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.