ArticlePLoS biology2015
Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement.
Article in PLoS biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 178 papers, 45 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
178 citing papers in PubMed, 45 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Targeting capillary leak in experimental sepsis and endotoxemia: a systematic review of therapeutic agents, methods and models in animal studies.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and neuroprotective effects of tetramethylpyrazine in animal models of spinal cord injury: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and exploratory machine-learning study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- The Effects of Thirdhand Vape Residue from Nicotine and Non-Nicotine Vapes on Cells: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effects of psychedelics on neurogenesis and broader neuroplasticity: a systematic review.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pharmacological modulation of conditioned fear in the fear-potentiated startle test: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies.Psychopharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 years of unpredictable chronic stress in zebrafish.Lab animal · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative evaluation of the health utilities index mark 3 and the short form 6D: evidence from an individual participant data meta-analysis of very preterm and very low birthweight adults.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review of ultrasound-mediated drug delivery to the eye and critical insights to facilitate a timely path to the clinic.Theranostics · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of biomaterial-based combination strategies for spinal cord repair - a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical literature.Spinal cord · 2022Pooled it
- A methodological review with meta-epidemiological analysis of preclinical systematic reviews with meta-analyses.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- What has preclinical systematic review ever done for us?BMJ open science · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Using median survival in meta-analysis of experimental time-to-event data.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic Comparison of Biomaterials-Based Strategies for Osteochondral and Chondral Repair in Large Animal Models.Advanced healthcare materials · 2021Pooled it
118 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issuedCorrection: Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement.2015 · Baginskitae, Julija [corrected to Baginskaite, Julija]
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The reliability of experimental findings depends on the rigour of experimental design. Here we show limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in a random sample of life sciences publications, significantly lower reporting of randomisation in work published in journals of high impact, and very limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in publications from leading United Kingdom institutions. Ascertainment of differences between institutions might serve both as a measure of research quality and as a tool for institutional efforts to improve research quality.
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.