ArticlePloS one2009
Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
366 citing papers in PubMed, 42 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 867 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Impact of β-mannanase supplementation on broilers fed low-energy diets: A phase feeding meta-analysis.Poultry science · 2026Pooled it
- Antiosteoporotic treatment promotes tendon-to-bone healing after rotator cuff repair : a systematic review of animal studies.Bone & joint research · 2026Pooled it
- Are biologically meaningful effect sizes a factor in study design? A systematic review of translational chronic variable stress studies.Experimental physiology · 2026Pooled it
- Hyptolactones and Their Biological Potential: A Systematic Review.Journal of natural products · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of opioids on tumour growth and metastasis in animal models: a systematic review.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of antenatal corticosteroid therapy in animal models of fetal growth restriction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Divergent effects of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) in sepsis: a meta-analysis of experimental studies.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Listen to what the animals say: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sterol 14-demethylase inhibitor efficacy for in vivo models of Trypanosoma cruzi infection.Parasitology research · 2024Pooled it
- Fetal and post-natal outcomes in offspring after intrauterine metformin exposure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of animal experiments.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2024Pooled it
- The Effect of Growth Factors on Vaginal Wound Healing: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Exposure to halogenated ethers causes neurodegeneration and behavioural changes in young healthy experimental animals: a systematic review and meta analyses.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Application of amniotic membranes in reconstructive surgery of internal organs-A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Enduring effects of early-life adversity on reward processes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Role of Exosomes in Dermal Wound Healing: A Systematic Review.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2022Pooled it
- Administration of meloxicam to improve the welfare of mice in research: a systematic review (2000 - 2020).Veterinary research communications · 2022Pooled it
- A Systematic Review on the Effects of Different Types of Probiotics in Animal Alzheimer's Disease Studies.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Pooled it
- Hepatoprotection of Probiotics Against Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver DiseaseFrontiers in nutrition · 2022Pooled it
- What has preclinical systematic review ever done for us?BMJ open science · 2022Pooled it
306 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.