Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21091655›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2011

Improving planning, design, reporting and scientific quality of animal experiments by using the Gold Standard Publication Checklist, in addition to the ARRIVE guidelines.

Carlijn R Hooijmans, Rob de Vries, Marlies Leenaars, Jo Curfs, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga

Abstract readComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of pharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Carlijn R HooijmansRadboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Central Animal Laboratory and 3R Research Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. C.Hooijmans@cdl.umcn.nl
Rob de Vries
Marlies Leenaars
Jo Curfs
Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several studies have demonstrated serious omissions in the way research that use animals is reported. In order to improve the quality of reporting of animal experiments, the Animals in research: reporting in vivo experiments (ARRIVE) Guidelines were published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in August 2010. However, not only the quality of reporting of completed animal studies needs to be improved, but also the design and execution of new experiments. With both these goals in mind, we published the Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) in May 2010, a few months before the ARRIVE guidelines appeared. In this letter, we compare the GSPC checklist with the ARRIVE Guidelines. The GSPC describes certain items in more detail, which makes it both easier to use when designing and conducting an experiment and particularly suitable for making systematic reviews of animal studies more feasible. In order to improve not only the reporting but also the planning, design, execution and thereby, the scientific quality of animal experiments, we strongly recommend to all scientists involved in animal experimentation and to editors of journals publishing animal studies to take a closer look at the contents of both the ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC, and select the set of guidelines which is most appropriate for their particular situation.

Indexed as

ChecklistPublishingAnimal ExperimentationAnimalsGuidelines as TopicResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID21091655
PMCPMC3058159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.