ArticlePloS one2019
Publication rates in animal research. Extent and characteristics of published and non-published animal studies followed up at two German university medical centres.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- The optimal transplantation strategy of umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells in spinal cord injury: a systematic review and network meta-analysis based on animal studies.Stem cell research & therapy · 2022Pooled it
- Conventional laboratory housing increases morbidity and mortality in research rodents: results of a meta-analysis.BMC biology · 2022Pooled it
- A survey of researchers' attitudes to preregistration in animal research reveals multiple perceived barriers to adoption.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- A call for preregistration of in vitro research : Pregistration as a tool to improve reproducibility and transparency.EMBO reports · 2026Article
- Need for NAMs: A systematic evidence synthesis revealing over half a century of drug development failure.NAM journal · 2026Article
- Preclinical Evidence for the Use of Brexpiprazole + Antidepressant Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2025Review
- Orthotopic meningioma rat model exhibits morphological and immunohistochemical congruency and epigenetic concordance with benign primary patient-derived tumors.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Medical Management versus PACK-CXL in Dogs with Infectious Keratitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- A guide to open science practices for animal research.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Do German university medical centres promote robust and transparent research? A cross-sectional study of institutional policies.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Declaration of common standards for the preregistration of animal research-speeding up the scientific progress.PNAS nexus · 2022Article
- The dark side of the animal experiments.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2022Review
- Preregistration of animal research protocols: development and 3-year overview of preclinicaltrials.eu.BMJ open science · 2022Review
- Measurement challenges and causes of incomplete results reporting of biomedical animal studies: Results from an interview study.PloS one · 2022Article
- Can Any Drug Be Repurposed for Cancer Treatment? A Systematic Assessment of the Scientific Literature.Cancers · 2021Article
- Article
- Mesenchymal stromal cells: what have we learned so far about their therapeutic potential and mechanisms of action?Emerging topics in life sciences · 2021Review
- A 3-year evaluation of preclinicaltrials.eu reveals room for improvement in preregistration of animal studies.PLoS biology · 2021Article
- Web-based survey among animal researchers on publication practices and incentives for increasing publication rates.PloS one · 2021Article
- fiddle: a tool to combat publication bias by getting research out of the file drawer and into the scientific community.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-publication and publication bias in animal research is a core topic in current debates on the "reproducibility crisis" and "failure rates in clinical research". To date, however, we lack reliable evidence on the extent of non-publication in animal research. We collected a random and stratified sample (n = 210) from all archived animal study protocols of two major German UMCs (university medical centres) and tracked their results publication. The overall publication rate was 67%. Excluding doctoral theses as results publications, the publication rate decreased to 58%. We did not find substantial differences in publication rates with regard to i) the year of animal study approval, ii) the two UMCs, iii) the animal type (rodents vs. non-rodents), iv) the scope of research (basic vs. preclinical), or v) the discipline of the applicant. Via the most reliable assessment strategy currently available, our study confirms that the non-publication of results from animal studies conducted at UMCs is relatively common. The non-publication of 33% of all animal studies is problematic for the following reasons: A) the primary legitimation of animal research, which is the intended knowledge gain for the wider scientific community, B) the waste of public resources, C) the unnecessary repetition of animal studies, and D) incomplete and potentially biased preclinical evidence for decision making on launching early human trials. Results dissemination should become a professional standard for animal research. Academic institutions and research funders should develop effective policies in this regard.
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.