ReviewThe Journal of endocrinology2023
Designing, conducting, and reporting reproducible animal experiments.
Review in The Journal of endocrinology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- On the (limited) use of touchscreen-based behavioural and cognitive research with dogs: potential causes and future directions.Animal cognition · 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
- Article
- Invisible attitudes have visible effects on the behaviour of animals in scientific studies.Animal cognition · 2026Article
- Junctions in Jeopardy: the neuromuscular junction is a selective pathological target in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026Review
- Advancing the 3Rs in bone tissue engineering: emergingFrontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Developing more inclusive approaches to animal research and patient involvement.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Article
- A scoping review of ethical decisions and decision tools for experimental animal protocols.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- A call to action to address critical flaws and bias in laboratory animal experiments and preclinical research.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Gold Nanoparticles for Wound Healing in Animal Models.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Development of 4T1 breast cancer mouse model system for preclinical carbonic anhydrase IX studies.FEBS open bio · 2025Article
- Daphnetin-mediated mitophagy alleviates intervertebral disc degeneration via the Nrf2/PINK1 pathway.Acta biochimica et biophysica Sinica · 2025Article
- Oxytocin in autism: Rethinking treatment and research through a neurodivergent perspective.Psychoneuroendocrinology · 2025Article
- A Systematic Online Living Evidence Summary of experimental Alzheimer's disease research.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2024Article
- Extrinsic Environmental Variables: The Umwelt of Research Animals and the Implications for the 3Rs and Study Reproducibility.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2024Article
- Genetically modified animals as models of neurodevelopmental conditions: A review of systematic review reporting quality.Brain and neuroscience advancesArticle
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
Abstract
In biomedicine and many other fields, there are growing concerns around the reproducibility of research findings, with many researchers being unable to replicate their own or others' results. This raises important questions as to the validity and usefulness of much published research. In this review, we aim to engage researchers in the issue of research reproducibility and equip them with the necessary tools to increase the reproducibility of their research. We first highlight the causes and potential impact of non-reproducible research and emphasise the benefits of working reproducibly for the researcher and broader research community. We address specific targets for improvement and steps that individual researchers can take to increase the reproducibility of their work. We next provide recommendations for improving the design and conduct of experiments, focusing on in vivo animal experiments. We describe common sources of poor internal validity of experiments and offer practical guidance for limiting these potential sources of bias at different experimental stages, as well as discussing other important considerations during experimental design. We provide a list of key resources available to researchers to improve experimental design, conduct, and reporting. We then discuss the importance of open research practices such as study preregistration and the use of preprints and describe recommendations around data management and sharing. Our review emphasises the importance of reproducible work and aims to empower every individual researcher to contribute to the reproducibility of research in their field.
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.