Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27855228›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

The Devil Is in the Details: Incomplete Reporting in Preclinical Animal Research.

Marc T Avey, David Moher, Katrina J Sullivan, Dean Fergusson, Gilly Griffin, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Brian Hutton, Manoj M Lalu, Malcolm Macleod, John Marshall and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 16 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Pooled it
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Marc T AveyClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8696-3232
David MoherClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Katrina J SullivanClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Dean FergussonClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Gilly GriffinClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jeremy M GrimshawClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Brian HuttonClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Manoj M LaluClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Malcolm MacleodDivision of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
John MarshallDepartment of Surgery (Critical Care), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Shirley H J MeiRegenerative Medicine Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Michael RudnickiRegenerative Medicine Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Duncan J StewartRegenerative Medicine Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Alexis F TurgeonPopulation Health and Optimal Health Practices Unit (Trauma - Emergency - Critical Care Medicine), Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec (Enfant-JésusHospital), Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada.
Lauralyn McIntyreClinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Critical Care Translational Biology Group

Funding

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/L000970/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Incomplete reporting of study methods and results has become a focal point for failures in the reproducibility and translation of findings from preclinical research. Here we demonstrate that incomplete reporting of preclinical research is not limited to a few elements of research design, but rather is a broader problem that extends to the reporting of the methods and results. We evaluated 47 preclinical research studies from a systematic review of acute lung injury that use mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) as a treatment. We operationalized the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) reporting guidelines for pre-clinical studies into 109 discrete reporting sub-items and extracted 5,123 data elements. Overall, studies reported less than half (47%) of all sub-items (median 51 items; range 37-64). Across all studies, the Methods Section reported less than half (45%) and the Results Section reported less than a third (29%). There was no association between journal impact factor and completeness of reporting, which suggests that incomplete reporting of preclinical research occurs across all journals regardless of their perceived prestige. Incomplete reporting of methods and results will impede attempts to replicate research findings and maximize the value of preclinical studies.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationResearch ReportAnimalsCell LineGuidelines as TopicNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)United States

Identifiers

PMID27855228
PMCPMC5113978

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.