ArticleVeterinary record open2019
Incomplete reporting of experimental studies and items associated with risk of bias in veterinary research.
Article in Veterinary record open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 6 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consistency in Reporting of Loss of Righting Reflex for Assessment of General Anesthesia in Rats and Mice: A Systematic Review.Comparative medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic Review: Anaesthetic Protocols and Management as Confounders in Rodent Blood Oxygen Level Dependent Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (BOLD fMRI)-Part A: Effects of Changes in Physiological Parameters.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Pooled it
- An empirical assessment of research practices across 163 clinical trials of tumor-bearing companion dogs.Scientific reports · 2019Pooled it
- Vaccination for the prevention of equine herpesvirus-1 disease in domesticated horses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of veterinary internal medicinePooled it
- Pharmacologic interventions for the treatment of equine herpesvirus-1 in domesticated horses: A systematic review.Journal of veterinary internal medicinePooled it
- Mitochondrial Adaptations to Exercise Training in Equine Skeletal Muscle: A Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- The Impact of Vegan Diets on Indicators of Health in Dogs and Cats: A Systematic Review.Veterinary sciences · 2023Review
- A guide to open science practices for animal research.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Reporting of anaesthesia and pain management in preclinical large animal models of articular cartilage repair - A long way to go.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2022Review
- The Short Form of the Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale in Post-operative Analgesia Studies in Dogs: A Scoping Review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
- Evidence-based veterinary medicine-potential, practice, and pitfalls.Journal of veterinary internal medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In in vivo research, the reporting of core items of study design is persistently poor, limiting assessment of study quality and study reproducibility. This observational cohort study evaluated reporting levels in the veterinary literature across a range of species, journals and research fields. Four items (randomisation, sample size estimation, blinding and data exclusion) were assessed as well as availability of study data in publicly accessible repositories. From five general and five subject-specific journals, 120 consecutively published papers (12 per journal) describing in vivo experimental studies were selected. Item reporting was scored using a published scale (items ranked as fully, partially or not reported) according to completeness of reporting. Papers in subject-specific journals had higher median reporting levels (50.0 per cent vs 33.3 per cent, P=0.007). In subject-specific journals, randomisation (75.0 per cent vs 41.7 per cent, P=0.0002) and sample size estimation (35.0 per cent vs 16.7 per cent, P=0.025) reporting was approximately double that of general journals. Blinding (general 48.3 per cent, subject-specific 50.0 per cent, P=0.86) and data exclusion (general 53.3 per cent, subject-specific 63.3 per cent, P=0.27) were similarly reported. A single paper made study data readily accessible. Incomplete reporting remains prevalent in the veterinary literature irrespective of journal type, research subject or species. This impedes evaluation of study quality and reproducibility, raising concerns regarding wasted financial and animal resources.
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.