TY - JOUR
T1 - Systematic review of guidelines for internal validity in the design, conduct and analysis of preclinical biomedical experiments involving laboratory animals
AU - EQIPD WP3 study group members
AU - Vollert, Jan
AU - Schenker, Esther
AU - MacLeod, Malcolm
AU - Bespalov, Anton
AU - Wuerbel, Hanno
AU - Michel, Martin
AU - Dirnagl, Ulrich
AU - Potschka, Heidrun
AU - Waldron, Ann Marie
AU - Wever, Kimberley
AU - Steckler, Thomas
AU - Van De Casteele, Tom
AU - Altevogt, Bruce
AU - Sil, Annesha
AU - Rice, Andrew S.C.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2020/2/24
Y1 - 2020/2/24
N2 - Over the last two decades, awareness of the negative repercussions of flaws in the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical research involving experimental animals has been growing. Several initiatives have set out to increase transparency and internal validity of preclinical studies, mostly publishing expert consensus and experience. While many of the points raised in these various guidelines are identical or similar, they differ in detail and rigour. Most of them focus on reporting, only few of them cover the planning and conduct of studies. The aim of this systematic review is to identify existing experimental design, conduct, analysis and reporting guidelines relating to preclinical animal research. A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science retrieved 13 863 unique results. After screening these on title and abstract, 613 papers entered the full-text assessment stage, from which 60 papers were retained. From these, we extracted unique 58 recommendations on the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical animal studies. Sample size calculations, adequate statistical methods, concealed and randomised allocation of animals to treatment, blinded outcome assessment and recording of animal flow through the experiment were recommended in more than half of the publications. While we consider these recommendations to be valuable, there is a striking lack of experimental evidence on their importance and relative effect on experiments and effect sizes.
AB - Over the last two decades, awareness of the negative repercussions of flaws in the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical research involving experimental animals has been growing. Several initiatives have set out to increase transparency and internal validity of preclinical studies, mostly publishing expert consensus and experience. While many of the points raised in these various guidelines are identical or similar, they differ in detail and rigour. Most of them focus on reporting, only few of them cover the planning and conduct of studies. The aim of this systematic review is to identify existing experimental design, conduct, analysis and reporting guidelines relating to preclinical animal research. A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science retrieved 13 863 unique results. After screening these on title and abstract, 613 papers entered the full-text assessment stage, from which 60 papers were retained. From these, we extracted unique 58 recommendations on the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical animal studies. Sample size calculations, adequate statistical methods, concealed and randomised allocation of animals to treatment, blinded outcome assessment and recording of animal flow through the experiment were recommended in more than half of the publications. While we consider these recommendations to be valuable, there is a striking lack of experimental evidence on their importance and relative effect on experiments and effect sizes.
KW - animal studies
KW - bias
KW - internal validity
KW - preclinical studies
KW - scientific rigor
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85087056034&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjos-2019-100046
DO - 10.1136/bmjos-2019-100046
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85087056034
SN - 2398-8703
VL - 4
JO - BMJ Open Science
JF - BMJ Open Science
IS - 1
M1 - e100046
ER -