A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research

Story C. Landis, Susan G. Amara, Khusru Asadullah, Chris P. Austin, Robi Blumenstein, Eileen W. Bradley, Ronald G. Crystal, Robert B. Darnell, Robert J. Ferrante, Howard Fillit, Robert Finkelstein, Marc Fisher, Howard E. Gendelman, Robert M. Golub, John L. Goudreau, Robert A. Gross, Amelie K. Gubitz, Sharon E. Hesterlee, David W. Howells, John HuguenardKatrina Kelner, Walter Koroshetz, Dimitri Krainc, Stanley E. Lazic, Michael S. Levine, Malcolm R. Macleod, John M. McCall, Richard T. Moxley, Kalyani Narasimhan, Linda J. Noble, Steve Perrin, John D. Porter, Oswald Steward, Ellis Unger, Ursula Utz, Shai D. Silberberg*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke convened major stakeholders in June 2012 to discuss how to improve the methodological reporting of animal studies in grant applications and publications. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum studies should report on sample-size estimation, whether and how animals were randomized, whether investigators were blind to the treatment, and the handling of data. We recognize that achieving a meaningful improvement in the quality of reporting will require a concerted effort by investigators, reviewers, funding agencies and journal editors. Requiring better reporting of animal studies will raise awareness of the importance of rigorous study design to accelerate scientific progress.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)187-191
Number of pages5
JournalNature
Volume490
Issue number7419
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 11 Oct 2012

Keywords

  • PUBLICATION BIAS
  • EXPERIMENTAL STROKE
  • CONTROLLED CLINICAL-TRIALS
  • RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS
  • CONSORT STATEMENT
  • CANCER-RESEARCH
  • ANIMAL RESEARCH
  • EMPIRICAL-EVIDENCE
  • DRUG DEVELOPMENT
  • STATISTICAL-ANALYSIS

Cite this