11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares

          The flagship journal of the Society for Endocrinology. Learn more

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Designing, conducting, and reporting reproducible animal experiments

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship

          There is an urgent need to improve the infrastructure supporting the reuse of scholarly data. A diverse set of stakeholders—representing academia, industry, funding agencies, and scholarly publishers—have come together to design and jointly endorse a concise and measureable set of principles that we refer to as the FAIR Data Principles. The intent is that these may act as a guideline for those wishing to enhance the reusability of their data holdings. Distinct from peer initiatives that focus on the human scholar, the FAIR Principles put specific emphasis on enhancing the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, in addition to supporting its reuse by individuals. This Comment is the first formal publication of the FAIR Principles, and includes the rationale behind them, and some exemplar implementations in the community.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

            Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the “ARRIVE Essential 10,” which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the “Recommended Set,” which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies

              Background Systematic Reviews (SRs) of experimental animal studies are not yet common practice, but awareness of the merits of conducting such SRs is steadily increasing. As animal intervention studies differ from randomized clinical trials (RCT) in many aspects, the methodology for SRs of clinical trials needs to be adapted and optimized for animal intervention studies. The Cochrane Collaboration developed a Risk of Bias (RoB) tool to establish consistency and avoid discrepancies in assessing the methodological quality of RCTs. A similar initiative is warranted in the field of animal experimentation. Methods We provide an RoB tool for animal intervention studies (SYRCLE’s RoB tool). This tool is based on the Cochrane RoB tool and has been adjusted for aspects of bias that play a specific role in animal intervention studies. To enhance transparency and applicability, we formulated signalling questions to facilitate judgment. Results The resulting RoB tool for animal studies contains 10 entries. These entries are related to selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other biases. Half these items are in agreement with the items in the Cochrane RoB tool. Most of the variations between the two tools are due to differences in design between RCTs and animal studies. Shortcomings in, or unfamiliarity with, specific aspects of experimental design of animal studies compared to clinical studies also play a role. Conclusions SYRCLE’s RoB tool is an adapted version of the Cochrane RoB tool. Widespread adoption and implementation of this tool will facilitate and improve critical appraisal of evidence from animal studies. This may subsequently enhance the efficiency of translating animal research into clinical practice and increase awareness of the necessity of improving the methodological quality of animal studies.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Endocrinol
                J Endocrinol
                JOE
                The Journal of Endocrinology
                Bioscientifica Ltd (Bristol )
                0022-0795
                1479-6805
                19 April 2023
                19 April 2023
                01 July 2023
                : 258
                : 1
                : e220330
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences , The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                [2 ]Simons Initiative for the Developing Brain , The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                [3 ]Department of Systems Medicine , School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
                [4 ]Department of Anesthesiology , Pain and Palliative Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                Correspondence should be addressed to G L Currie: Gillian.Currie@ 123456ed.ac.uk

                *(E Wilson and F J Ramage contributed equally to this work)

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8100-7508
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4855-7911
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3635-3660
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3282-8502
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9187-9839
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3052-2929
                Article
                JOE-22-0330
                10.1530/JOE-22-0330
                10304908
                37074416
                4e97006e-9efb-4613-b47d-6632a4f09f98
                © the author(s)

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 16 March 2023
                : 19 April 2023
                Categories
                Review

                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                reproducibility,open research,animal research,experimental design
                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                reproducibility, open research, animal research, experimental design

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log