Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33057427›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study.

Claudia Kurreck, Esmeralda Castaños-Vélez, Dorette Freyer, Sonja Blumenau, Ingo Przesdzing, Rene Bernard, Ulrich Dirnagl

Abstract 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

7 authors.

Claudia KurreckDepartment of Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9567-626X
Esmeralda Castaños-VélezNeuroCure Cluster of Excellence, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2670-1118
Dorette FreyerDepartment of Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0082-044X
Sonja BlumenauDepartment of Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Ingo PrzesdzingDepartment of Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4458-8657
Rene BernardDepartment of Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3265-2372
Ulrich DirnaglDepartment of Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0755-6119

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How much can we rely on whether what was reported in a study was actually done? Systematic and independent examination of records, documents and processes through audits are a central element of quality management systems. In the context of current concerns about the robustness and reproducibility of experimental biomedical research audits have been suggested as a remedy a number of times. However, audits are resource intense and time consuming, and due to their very nature may be perceived as inquisition. Consequently, there is very little experience or literature on auditing and assessments in the complex preclinical biomedical research environment. To gain some insight into which audit approaches might best suit biomedical research in academia, in this study we have applied a number of them in a typical academic neuroscience environment consisting of twelve research groups with about 100 researchers, students and technicians, utilizing the full gamut of state-of-the-art methodology. Several types of assessments and internal as well as external audits (including the novel format of a peer audit) were systematically explored by a team of quality management specialists. An experimental design template was developed (and is provided here) that takes into account and mitigates difficulties, risks and systematic errors that may occur during the course of a study. All audits were performed according to a pre-defined workflow developed by us. Outcomes were assessed qualitatively. We asked for feedback from participating employees in every final discussion of an audit and documented this in the audit reports. Based on these reports follow-up audits were improved. We conclude that several realistic options for auditing exist which have the potential to improve preclinical biomedical research in academia, and have listed specific recommendations regarding their benefits and provided practical resources for their implementation (e.g. study design and audit templates, audit workflow).

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchFeasibility StudiesHumansMedical AuditNeurologySelf-Assessment

Identifiers

PMID33057427
PMCPMC7561085

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.