SynthesisPloS one2022
Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 6 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Stem Cell Secretome-Derived Exosomes for Neuropathic Pain: Therapeutic Mechanisms and Translational Potential.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Pooled it
- Antileishmanial Activity of Bioactive Compounds Obtained fromMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Neuroprotective Agents for Photoreceptor Rescue Following Experimental Retinal Detachment in Rodents: A Systematic Review.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Pooled it
- Are biologically meaningful effect sizes a factor in study design? A systematic review of translational chronic variable stress studies.Experimental physiology · 2026Pooled it
- Regular collagen peptide administration exerts anti-obesity effects in high-caloric diet-fed rodents-a systematic review with meta-analysis of animal trials.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Antenatal Sildenafil for Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Preclinical Studies.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- A call to action to address critical flaws and bias in laboratory animal experiments and preclinical research.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reporting preclinical gene therapy studies in the field of Niemann-Pick type C disease according to the ARRIVE guidelines.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Review
- How Transparent and Reproducible Are Studies That Use Animal Models of Opioid Addiction?Addiction biology · 2025Article
- An Updated Bio-Behavioral Profile of the Flinders Sensitive Line Rat: Reviewing the Findings of the Past Decade.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2025Review
- 3D-bioprinted urethral grafts: Revolutionizing urethral stricture treatment.Arab journal of urology · 2025Review
- CRIME-Q-a unifying tool for critical appraisal of methodological (technical) quality, quality of reporting and risk of bias in animal research.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Reporting of 3Rs Approaches in Preclinical Animal Experimental Studies-A Nationwide Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lack of translation and irreproducibility challenge preclinical animal research. Insufficient reporting methodologies to safeguard study quality is part of the reason. This nationwide study investigates the reporting prevalence of these methodologies and scrutinizes the reported information's level of detail. Publications were from two time periods to convey any reporting progress and had at least one author affiliated to a Danish University. We retrieved all relevant animal experimental studies using a predefined research protocol and a systematic search. A random sampling of 250 studies from 2009 and 2018 led to 500 publications in total. Reporting of measures known to impact study results estimates were assessed. Part I discloses a simplified two-level scoring "yes/no" to identify the presence of reporting. Part II demonstrates an additional three-level scoring to analyze the reported information's level of detail. Overall reporting prevalence is low, although minor improvements are noted. Reporting of randomization increased from 24.0% in 2009 to 40.8% in 2018, blinded experiment conduct from 2.4% to 4.4%, blinded outcome assessment from 23.6% to 38.0%, and sample size calculation from 3.2% to 14.0%. Poor reporting of details is striking with reporting of the random allocation method to groups being only 1.2% in 2009 and 6.0% in 2018. Reporting of sample size calculation method was 2.4% in 2009 and 7.6% in 2018. Only conflict-of-interest statements reporting increased from 37.6% in 2009 to 90.4%. Measures safeguarding study quality are poorly reported in publications affiliated with Danish research institutions. Only a modest improvement was noted during the period 2009-2018, and the lack of details urgently prompts institutional strategies to accelerate this. We suggest thorough teaching in designing, conducting and reporting animal studies. Education in systematic review methodology should be implemented in this training and will increase motivation and behavior working towards quality improvements in science.
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.