ArticlePLoS biology2022
Do multiple experimenters improve the reproducibility of animal studies?
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review on the effect of individual characteristics and management practices on equine cognition.Animal cognition · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of the development and application of home cage monitoring in laboratory mice and rats.BMC biology · 2023Pooled it
- Effects of enrichment removal on cognitive judgement bias of mice: a comparison of two paradigms.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Article
- A FAIR-Compliant Management Solution for Molecular Simulation Trajectories.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- Variability of test parameters from mice of different age groups in published data sets.PloS one · 2025Article
- Toward a roadmap for addressing today's health dilemma-The 101-statement consensus report.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Assessing the effects of fluids and antibiotics in an acute murine model of sepsis: study protocol for the National Preclinical Sepsis Platform-01 (NPSP-01) Study.F1000Research · 2025Article
- The role of male quality in sequential mate choice: pregnancy replacement in small mammals?Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- What Can Laboratory Animal Facility Managers Do to Improve the Welfare of Laboratory Animals and Laboratory Animal Facility Staff? A German Perspective.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Differences in enteric neuronal density in the NSE-Noggin mouse model across institutes.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Patient-derived organoids in human cancer: a platform for fundamental research and precision medicine.Molecular biomedicine · 2024Review
- Using mice from different breeding sites fails to improve replicability of results from single-laboratory studies.Lab animal · 2024Article
- A multi-lab experimental assessment reveals that replicability can be improved by using empirical estimates of genotype-by-lab interaction.PLoS biology · 2023Article
- Article
- Attraction of female house mice to male ultrasonic courtship vocalizations depends on their social experience and estrous stage.PloS one · 2023Article
- Correction: Do multiple experimenters improve the reproducibility of animal studies?PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Systematic heterogenisation to improve reproducibility in animal studies.PLoS biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.