ArticlePLoS biology2022
A qualitative study of the barriers to using blinding in in vivo experiments and suggestions for improvement.
Article in PLoS biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Neuroprotective effects and mechanistic insights of sinomenine in ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical animal studies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Antihypertensive Drugs as Potential Repositioning Options for Melanoma: A Map of Pre-Clinical Evidence.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Experimental Designs for Preclinical Neuroscience Experiments: Part 2-Blocking and Blocked Designs.eNeuro · 2026Review
- In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities and phytochemical screening of 80% methanol extract from Ehretia cymosa leaves.PloS one · 2026Article
- What helps and hinders reproducible research? Researchers' perspectives from a cross-disciplinary interview study.PloS one · 2026Article
- A call to action to address critical flaws and bias in laboratory animal experiments and preclinical research.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessing risk of bias in toxicological studies in the era of artificial intelligence.Archives of toxicology · 2025Review
- Dose-dependent myopia-suppressing effect of 4-phenlybutyric acid eye drops in a mouse myopia model under masked condition.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Testing the reproducibility of ecological studies on insect behavior in a multi-laboratory setting identifies opportunities for improving experimental rigor.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- How Transparent and Reproducible Are Studies That Use Animal Models of Opioid Addiction?Addiction biology · 2025Article
- Preclinical extracellular matrix-based treatment strategies for myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Simulation approach for common female cancers: a brief review.Frontiers in oncology · 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
- Review
- RNA interference-based strategies to control Botrytis cinerea infection in cultivated strawberry.Plant cell reports · 2024Article
- Behavioral Analysis of NMDAR Function in Rodents: Tests of Long-Term Spatial Memory.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Macrophage/Microglia Sirt3 Contributes to the Anti-inflammatory Effects of Resveratrol Against Experimental Intracerebral Hemorrhage in Mice.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2023Article
- Universal Recommendations on Planning and Performing the Auditory Brainstem Responses (ABR) with a Focus on Mice and Rats.Audiology research · 2023Article
- Antibiotic-induced gut dysbiosis and cognitive, emotional, and behavioral changes in rodents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- Hepatoprotective effects of cinnamaldehyde against high-fat diet-induced liver damage.Avicenna journal of phytomedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In animal experiments, blinding (also known as masking) is a methodological strategy to reduce the risk that scientists, animal care staff, or other staff involved in the research may consciously or subconsciously influence the outcome. Lack of masking has been shown to correlate with an overestimation of treatment efficacy and false positive findings. We conducted exploratory interviews across academic and a commercial setting to discuss the implementation of masking at four stages of the experiment: during allocation and intervention, during the conduct of the experiment, during the outcome assessment, and during the data analysis. The objective was to explore the awareness, engagement, perceptions, and the barriers to implementing masking in animal experiments. We conducted multiple interviews, to explore 30 different experiments, and found examples of excellent practice but also areas where masking was rarely implemented. Significant barriers arose from the operational and informatic systems implemented. These systems have prioritised the management of welfare without considering how to allow researchers to use masking in their experiments. For some experiments, there was a conflict between the management of welfare for an individual animal versus delivering a robust experiment where all animals are treated in the same manner. We identified other challenges related to the level of knowledge on the purpose of masking or the implementation and the work culture. The exploration of these issues provides insight into how we, as a community, can identify the most significant barriers in a given research environment. Here, we offer practical solutions to enable researchers to implement masking as standard. To move forward, we need both the individual scientists to embrace the use of masking and the facility managers and institutes to engage and provide a framework that supports the scientists.
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.