Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31905203›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Attitudes towards animal study registries and their characteristics: An online survey of three cohorts of animal researchers.

Susanne Wieschowski, Hans Laser, Emily S Sena, André Bleich, René Tolba, Daniel Strech

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Susanne WieschowskiInstitute for Ethics, History, and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0128-2938
Hans LaserCenter for Information Management (ZIMt), Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0958-8600
Emily S SenaCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
André BleichInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
René TolbaInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Aachen, Germany.
Daniel StrechInstitute for Ethics, History, and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DERWTH Aachen University · DEUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesProspective registration of animal studies has been suggested as a new measure to increase value and reduce waste in biomedical research. We sought to further explore and quantify animal researchers' attitudes and preferences regarding animal study registries (ASRs).

designCross-sectional online survey. SETTING AND

participantsWe conducted a survey with three different samples representing animal researchers: i) corresponding authors from journals with high Eigenfactor, ii) a random Pubmed sample and iii) members of the CAMARADES network.

main outcome measuresPerceived level of importance of different aspects of publication bias, the effect of ASRs on different aspects of research as well as the importance of different research types for being registered.

resultsThe survey yielded responses from 413 animal researchers (response rate 7%). The respondents indicated, that some aspects of ASRs can increase administrative burden but could be outweighed by other aspects decreasing this burden. Animal researchers found it more important to register studies that involved animal species with higher levels of cognitive capabilities. The time frame for making registry entries publicly available revealed a strong heterogeneity among respondents, with the largest proportion voting for "access only after consent by the principal investigator" and the second largest proportion voting for "access immediately after registration".

conclusionsThe fact that the more senior and experienced animal researchers participating in this survey clearly indicated the practical importance of publication bias and the importance of ASRs underscores the problem awareness across animal researchers and the willingness to actively engage in study registration if effective safeguards for the potential weaknesses of ASRs are put into place. To overcome the first-mover dilemma international consensus statements on how to deal with prospective registration of animal studies might be necessary for all relevant stakeholder groups including animal researchers, academic institutions, private companies, funders, regulatory agencies, and journals.

Indexed as

Animals, LaboratoryAttitudeAnimal ExperimentationAnimalsBiomedical ResearchCross-Sectional StudiesHumansProspective StudiesPublication BiasRegistriesResearch DesignResearch PersonnelSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID31905203
PMCPMC6944338
OpenAlexW2998472634

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.