ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Evaluating Study Design Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Research: A Replication Study.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Methodological rigor remains a priority in preclinical cardiovascular research to ensure experimental reproducibility and high-quality research. Limited reproducibility diminishes the translation of preclinical discoveries into medical practice. In addition, lack of reproducibility fosters uncertainty in the public's acceptance of reported research results. Methods: We evaluated the reporting of methodological practices in preclinical cardiovascular research studies published in leading scientific journals by screening articles for the inclusion of the following study design elements (SDEs): considering sex as a biological variable, randomization, blinding, and sample size power estimation. We screened for these SDEs across articles regarding preclinical cardiovascular research studies published between 2011 and 2021. We replicated and extended a study published in 2017 by Ramirez et al. We hypothesized a higher SDE inclusion across preclinical studies over time, that preclinical studies that include human and animal substudies within the same study will exhibit greater SDE inclusion than animal-only preclinical studies, and that a difference exists in SDE usage between large and small animal models. Results: SDE inclusion was low; with 15.2% of animal-only studies including both sexes as a biological variable, 30.4% including randomization, 32.1% including blinding, and 8.2% including sample size estimation. The incorporation of SDEs did not significantly increase over the ten-year timeframe in the screened articles. Randomization and sample size estimation differed significantly between animal and human substudies (corrected p=1.85e-05 and corrected p=3.81e-07, respectively.). Conclusions: Evidence of methodological rigor varies depending on the study type and model organisms used. From 2011-2021, SDE reporting within preclinical studies has not increased, suggesting more work is needed to foster the inclusion of rigorous study design elements in cardiovascular research.
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.