SynthesisPloS one2017
A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 10 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
72 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Machine Learning for the Analysis of Healthy Lifestyle Data: Scoping Review and Guidelines.JMIR human factors · 2026Guideline
- Are biologically meaningful effect sizes a factor in study design? A systematic review of translational chronic variable stress studies.Experimental physiology · 2026Pooled it
- Phage diversity in human breast milk: a systematic review.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- The Reporting Quality of Machine Learning Studies on Pediatric Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Methods for Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback (HRVB): A Systematic Review and Guidelines.Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback · 2023Pooled it
- Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Recommendations for Safe Dental Care: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines in the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Non-Coding RNAs in Human Breast Milk: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Pooled it
- Practical guidelines for rigor and reproducibility in preclinical and clinical studies on cardioprotection.Basic research in cardiology · 2018Guideline
- Pooled it
- Pre-Exposure Intranasal Treatment with Neomycin Sulfate Reduces Transmission of Influenza B Virus.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Scoping Review of the Socioeconomic Value of Working Equids, and the Impact of Educational Interventions Aimed at Improving Their Welfare.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Oral Toxicity Profile of a Novel Silk Lutein Extract and Assessment of Its Cardiovascular Benefits in Rodents.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- A call to action to address critical flaws and bias in laboratory animal experiments and preclinical research.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Protocol for development of a checklist and guideline for transparent reporting of cluster analyses (TRoCA).BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- How Transparent and Reproducible Are Studies That Use Animal Models of Opioid Addiction?Addiction biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Biological Effects of Polysaccharides fromPharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Prostate cancer MRI methodological radiomics score: a EuSoMII radiomics auditing group initiative.European radiology · 2025Review
12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Irreproducibility of preclinical biomedical research has gained recent attention. It is suggested that requiring authors to complete a checklist at the time of manuscript submission would improve the quality and transparency of scientific reporting, and ultimately enhance reproducibility. Whether a checklist enhances quality and transparency in reporting preclinical animal studies, however, has not been empirically studied. Here we searched two highly cited life science journals, one that requires a checklist at submission (Nature) and one that does not (Cell), to identify in vivo animal studies. After screening 943 articles, a total of 80 articles were identified in 2013 (pre-checklist) and 2015 (post-checklist), and included for the detailed evaluation of reporting methodological and analytical information. We compared the quality of reporting preclinical animal studies between the two journals, accounting for differences between journals and changes over time in reporting. We find that reporting of randomization, blinding, and sample-size estimation significantly improved when comparing Nature to Cell from 2013 to 2015, likely due to implementation of a checklist. Specifically, improvement in reporting of the three methodological information was at least three times greater when a mandatory checklist was implemented than when it was not. Reporting the sex of animals and the number of independent experiments performed also improved from 2013 to 2015, likely from factors not related to a checklist. Our study demonstrates that completing a checklist at manuscript submission is associated with improved reporting of key methodological information in preclinical animal studies.
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.