Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35530730›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2022

Ten Points to Improve Reproducibility and Translation of Animal Research.

Rainer Spanagel

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. A new module in the drug development process: preclinical multi-center randomized controlled trial of R-ketamine on alcohol relapse.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2025
    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

1 author.

Rainer SpanagelInstitute of Psychopharmacology, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Findings from animal experiments are often difficult to transfer to humans. In this perspective article I discuss two questions. First, why are the results of animal experiments often so difficult to transfer to humans? And second, what can be done to improve translation from animal experiments to humans? Translation failures are often the result of poor methodology. It is not merely the fact that low statistical power of basic and preclinical studies undermine a "real effect," but the accuracy with which data from animal studies are collected and described, and the resulting robustness of the data is generally very low and often does not allow translation to a much more heterogeneous human condition. Equally important is the fact that the vast majority of publications in the biomedical field in the last few decades have reported positive findings and have thus generated a knowledge bias. Further contributions to reproducibility and translation failures are discussed in this paper, and 10 points of recommendation to improve reproducibility and translation are outlined. These recommendations are: (i) prior to planning an actual study, a systematic review or potential preclinical meta-analysis should be considered. (ii) An

Indexed as

3R6Rconfirmatory animal studyDSM-based animal modelexploratory animal studyHARCKingopen sciencep-hacking

Identifiers

PMID35530730
PMCPMC9070052

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.