Edinburgh Research Explorer

Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Related Edinburgh Organisations

Open Access permissions

Open

Documents

  • Download as Adobe PDF

    Rights statement: 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, 2 MB, PDF document

    Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY)

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e2003693
JournalPLoS Biology
Volume16
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 22 Feb 2018

Abstract

Single-laboratory studies conducted under highly standardized conditions are the gold standard in preclinical animal research. Using simulations based on 440 preclinical studies across 13 different interventions in animal models of stroke, myocardial infarction, and breast cancer, we compared the accuracy of effect size estimates between single-laboratory and multi-laboratory study designs. Single-laboratory studies generally failed to predict effect size accurately, and larger sample sizes rendered effect size estimates even less accurate. By contrast, multi-laboratory designs including as few as 2 to 4 laboratories increased coverage probability by up to 42 percentage points without a need for larger sample sizes. These findings demonstrate that within-study standardization is a major cause of poor reproducibility. More representative study samples are required to improve the external validity and reproducibility of preclinical animal research and to prevent wasting animals and resources for inconclusive research.

    Research areas

  • Journal Article

Download statistics

No data available

ID: 55591312