ReviewCirculation research2017
Methodological Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Studies: Targets to Enhance Reproducibility and Promote Research Translation.
Review in Circulation research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 11 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
75 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Divergent effects of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) in sepsis: a meta-analysis of experimental studies.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Risk of bias and reporting practices in studies comparing VOJournal of sport and health science · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research.Nature communications · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic Interrogation of Angiogenesis in the Ischemic Mouse Hind Limb: Vulnerabilities and Quality Assurance.Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology · 2020Pooled it
- Clinical and Preclinical Systematic Review ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Practical guidelines for rigor and reproducibility in preclinical and clinical studies on cardioprotection.Basic research in cardiology · 2018Guideline
- Guidelines for experimental models of myocardial ischemia and infarction.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2018Guideline
- Pooled it
- A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: A systematic review.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Hypertrophy Regression With N-Acetylcysteine in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HALT-HCM): A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Pilot Study.Circulation research · 2018Trial
- Improving the transparency of animal experiments: valuable lessons learned from a systematic analysis of registration protocols.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Animal models of critical illness in the Asia-Pacific region: current practices, shared challenges, and future directions.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Review
- The lack of evidence-based management in electrical storm: a scoping review.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Reporting preclinical gene therapy studies in the field of Niemann-Pick type C disease according to the ARRIVE guidelines.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Review
- Evaluating Study Design Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Research: A Replication Study.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- A roadmap for therapeutic discovery in pulmonary hypertension associated with left heart failure. A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC and the ESC Working Group on Pulmonary Circulation & Right Ventricular Function.European journal of heart failure · 2024Article
- Article
- Cardiology researchers' practices and perceived barriers to open science: an international survey.Open heart · 2024Article
15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleMethodological sources of bias and suboptimal reporting contribute to irreproducibility in preclinical science and may negatively affect research translation. Randomization, blinding, sample size estimation, and considering sex as a biological variable are deemed crucial study design elements to maximize the quality and predictive value of preclinical experiments.
objectiveTo examine the prevalence and temporal patterns of recommended study design element implementation in preclinical cardiovascular research. METHODS AND
resultsAll articles published over a 10-year period in 5 leading cardiovascular journals were reviewed. Reports of in vivo experiments in nonhuman mammals describing pathophysiology, genetics, or therapeutic interventions relevant to specific cardiovascular disorders were identified. Data on study design and animal model use were collected. Citations at 60 months were additionally examined as a surrogate measure of research impact in a prespecified subset of studies, stratified by individual and cumulative study design elements. Of 28 636 articles screened, 3396 met inclusion criteria. Randomization was reported in 21.8%, blinding in 32.7%, and sample size estimation in 2.3%. Temporal and disease-specific analyses show that the implementation of these study design elements has overall not appreciably increased over the past decade, except in preclinical stroke research, which has uniquely demonstrated significant improvements in methodological rigor. In a subset of 1681 preclinical studies, randomization, blinding, sample size estimation, and inclusion of both sexes were not associated with increased citations at 60 months.
conclusionsMethodological shortcomings are prevalent in preclinical cardiovascular research, have not substantially improved over the past 10 years, and may be overlooked when basing subsequent studies. Resultant risks of bias and threats to study validity have the potential to hinder progress in cardiovascular medicine as preclinical research often precedes and informs clinical trials. Stroke research quality has uniquely improved in recent years, warranting a closer examination for interventions to model in other cardiovascular fields.
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.