Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41741227›Full record

RevieweNeuro2026

Experimental Designs for Preclinical Neuroscience Experiments: Part 2-Blocking and Blocked Designs.

P S Reynolds

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in eNeuro, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

P S ReynoldsDepartment of Anesthesiology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32610 psreynolds201@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7480-6275

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blocking is a key statistical method introduced almost a century ago by Ronald Fisher. Blocking controls the effect of "nuisance" variables that are not of direct interest but introduce unwanted variation into the experimental response. Block factors, such as cage, litter, or time, are used to group experimental units into homogeneous subsets. There are two types of block designs: complete and incomplete. In complete block designs every treatment appears in every block. Examples include the Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with a single block factor, and variants such as Latin square and Graeco-Latin square designs with multiple block factors. RCBDs are simple, flexible, and the most widely used. Replicated and nested Latin square designs allow more rigorous control of complex nuisance structures with minimal sample size. Incomplete block designs are extremely useful when practical constraints (e.g., caging density or varying litter sizes) restrict complete treatment replication across all blocks. Because not all treatments appear in every block, these designs require computer-generated allocation plans to obtain optimum balance and efficiency. Each of the seven blocking designs described in this paper includes a practical example from the research literature, the corresponding skeleton analysis of variance and R code for random allocation plans. By increasing precision and power to detect treatment effects, blocking promotes ethical research by maximizing the amount of information for a minimum number of animals, supporting the 3Rs principle of Reduction.

Indexed as

NeurosciencesResearch DesignAnimalsblockingdesign of experimentsincomplete blockLatin squarerandomized complete blockstatistics

Identifiers

PMID41741227
PMCPMC12935487

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.