Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35511779›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2022

Do multiple experimenters improve the reproducibility of animal studies?

Vanessa Tabea von Kortzfleisch, Oliver Ambrée, Natasha A Karp, Neele Meyer, Janja Novak, Rupert Palme, Marianna Rosso, Chadi Touma, Hanno Würbel, Sylvia Kaiser and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A FAIR-Compliant Management Solution for Molecular Simulation Trajectories.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Vanessa Tabea von KortzfleischDepartment of Behavioural Biology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4191-4434
Oliver AmbréeDepartment of Behavioural Biology, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Natasha A KarpData Sciences & Quantitative Biology, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Neele MeyerDepartment of Behavioural Biology, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4955-4488
Janja NovakDivision of Animal Welfare, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Rupert PalmeDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-9466-3662
Marianna RossoDivision of Animal Welfare, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Chadi ToumaDepartment of Behavioural Biology, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Hanno WürbelDivision of Animal Welfare, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Sylvia KaiserDepartment of Behavioural Biology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2770-7367
Norbert SachserDepartment of Behavioural Biology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
S Helene RichterDepartment of Behavioural Biology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The credibility of scientific research has been seriously questioned by the widely claimed "reproducibility crisis". In light of this crisis, there is a growing awareness that the rigorous standardisation of experimental conditions may contribute to poor reproducibility of animal studies. Instead, systematic heterogenisation has been proposed as a tool to enhance reproducibility, but a real-life test across multiple independent laboratories is still pending. The aim of this study was therefore to test whether heterogenisation of experimental conditions by using multiple experimenters improves the reproducibility of research findings compared to standardised conditions with only one experimenter. To this end, we replicated the same animal experiment in 3 independent laboratories, each employing both a heterogenised and a standardised design. Whereas in the standardised design, all animals were tested by a single experimenter; in the heterogenised design, 3 different experimenters were involved in testing the animals. In contrast to our expectation, the inclusion of multiple experimenters in the heterogenised design did not improve the reproducibility of the results across the 3 laboratories. Interestingly, however, a variance component analysis indicated that the variation introduced by the different experimenters was not as high as the variation introduced by the laboratories, probably explaining why this heterogenisation strategy did not bring the anticipated success. Even more interestingly, for the majority of outcome measures, the remaining residual variation was identified as an important source of variance accounting for 41% (CI95 [34%, 49%]) to 72% (CI95 [58%, 88%]) of the observed total variance. Despite some uncertainty surrounding the estimated numbers, these findings argue for systematically including biological variation rather than eliminating it in animal studies and call for future research on effective improvement strategies.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationAnimals, LaboratoryAnimalsLaboratoriesReference StandardsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID35511779
PMCPMC9070896

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.