Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement

Malcolm R. Macleod; Aaron Lawson Mclean; Aikaterini Kyriakopoulou; Stylianos Serghiou; Arno de Wilde; Nicki Sherratt; Theo Hirst; Rachel Hemblade; Zsanett Bahor; Cristina Nunes-Fonseca; Aparna Potluru; Andrew Thomson; Julija Baginskitae; Kieren Egan; Hanna Vesterinen; Gillian L. Currie; Leonid Churilov; David W. Howells; Emily S. Sena

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement

Malcolm R. Macleod, Aaron Lawson Mclean, Aikaterini Kyriakopoulou, Stylianos Serghiou, Arno de Wilde, Nicki Sherratt, Theo Hirst, Rachel Hemblade, Zsanett Bahor, Cristina Nunes-Fonseca, Aparna Potluru, Andrew Thomson, Julija Baginskitae, Kieren Egan, Hanna Vesterinen, Gillian L. Currie, Leonid Churilov, David W. Howells, Emily S. Sena

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract / Description of output

The reliability of experimental findings depends on the rigour of experimental design. Here we show limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in a random sample of life sciences publications, significantly lower reporting of randomisation in work published in journals of high impact, and very limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in publications from leading United Kingdom institutions. Ascertainment of differences between institutions might serve both as a measure of research quality and as a tool for institutional efforts to improve research quality.

Original language	English
Article number	e1002273
Journal	PLoS Biology
Volume	13
Issue number	10
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273
Publication status	Published - 13 Oct 2015

Access to Document

10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY)

Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research
Copyright: © 2015 Macleod et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Final published version, 952 KBLicence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY)

ivSyRMAF - the CAMARADES-NC3Rs in vivo systematic review
MacLeod, M. & Sena, E.
UK central government bodies/local authorities, health and hospital authorities
1/10/13 → 30/09/18
Project: Research

Malcolm MacLeod
- Deanery of Clinical Sciences - Personal Chair of Neurology and Translational Neuroscience
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences
- Edinburgh Neuroscience
- Edinburgh Imaging
- Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies
- Cerebrovascular Research Group
Person: Academic: Research Active

Cite this

Macleod, M. R., Lawson Mclean, A., Kyriakopoulou, A., Serghiou, S., de Wilde, A., Sherratt, N., Hirst, T., Hemblade, R., Bahor, Z., Nunes-Fonseca, C., Potluru, A., Thomson, A., Baginskitae, J., Egan, K., Vesterinen, H., Currie, G. L., Churilov, L., Howells, D. W., & Sena, E. S. (2015). Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement. PLoS Biology, 13(10), Article e1002273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

@article{0b5f53a56eb043298c374467f17c474f,

title = "Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement",

abstract = "The reliability of experimental findings depends on the rigour of experimental design. Here we show limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in a random sample of life sciences publications, significantly lower reporting of randomisation in work published in journals of high impact, and very limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in publications from leading United Kingdom institutions. Ascertainment of differences between institutions might serve both as a measure of research quality and as a tool for institutional efforts to improve research quality.",

author = "Macleod, {Malcolm R.} and {Lawson Mclean}, Aaron and Aikaterini Kyriakopoulou and Stylianos Serghiou and {de Wilde}, Arno and Nicki Sherratt and Theo Hirst and Rachel Hemblade and Zsanett Bahor and Cristina Nunes-Fonseca and Aparna Potluru and Andrew Thomson and Julija Baginskitae and Kieren Egan and Hanna Vesterinen and Currie, {Gillian L.} and Leonid Churilov and Howells, {David W.} and Sena, {Emily S.}",

year = "2015",

month = oct,

day = "13",

doi = "10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273",

language = "English",

volume = "13",

journal = "PLoS Biology",

issn = "1544-9173",

publisher = "Public Library of Science",

number = "10",

}

Macleod, MR, Lawson Mclean, A, Kyriakopoulou, A, Serghiou, S, de Wilde, A, Sherratt, N, Hirst, T, Hemblade, R, Bahor, Z, Nunes-Fonseca, C, Potluru, A, Thomson, A, Baginskitae, J, Egan, K, Vesterinen, H, Currie, GL, Churilov, L, Howells, DW & Sena, ES 2015, 'Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement', PLoS Biology, vol. 13, no. 10, e1002273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement

AU - Macleod, Malcolm R.

AU - Lawson Mclean, Aaron

AU - Kyriakopoulou, Aikaterini

AU - Serghiou, Stylianos

AU - de Wilde, Arno

AU - Sherratt, Nicki

AU - Hirst, Theo

AU - Hemblade, Rachel

AU - Bahor, Zsanett

AU - Nunes-Fonseca, Cristina

AU - Potluru, Aparna

AU - Thomson, Andrew

AU - Baginskitae, Julija

AU - Egan, Kieren

AU - Vesterinen, Hanna

AU - Currie, Gillian L.

AU - Churilov, Leonid

AU - Howells, David W.

AU - Sena, Emily S.

PY - 2015/10/13

Y1 - 2015/10/13

N2 - The reliability of experimental findings depends on the rigour of experimental design. Here we show limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in a random sample of life sciences publications, significantly lower reporting of randomisation in work published in journals of high impact, and very limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in publications from leading United Kingdom institutions. Ascertainment of differences between institutions might serve both as a measure of research quality and as a tool for institutional efforts to improve research quality.

AB - The reliability of experimental findings depends on the rigour of experimental design. Here we show limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in a random sample of life sciences publications, significantly lower reporting of randomisation in work published in journals of high impact, and very limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in publications from leading United Kingdom institutions. Ascertainment of differences between institutions might serve both as a measure of research quality and as a tool for institutional efforts to improve research quality.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

DO - 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

M3 - Article

SN - 1544-9173

VL - 13

JO - PLoS Biology

JF - PLoS Biology

IS - 10

M1 - e1002273

ER -

Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement

Abstract / Description of output

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Projects

ivSyRMAF - the CAMARADES-NC3Rs in vivo systematic review

Profiles

Malcolm MacLeod

Cite this