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

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.

Translational Stroke Research Opportunities and a Strategy to Develop Effective Cytoprotection

“…This assumes that the level of current research is inadequate and researchers must improve research study design, data handling, and interpretation. This recommendation is consistent with previous recommendations and publications, including STAIR [20], RIGOR [21][22][23][24] and CAMARADES [25,26], guidelines that are now mainstays in the field. However, based upon manuscript submission to this Journal, there is still less than 30% compliance by research laboratories worldwide primarily because high quality fully transparent research can be costly and there is insufficient funding available (see [30]).…”

“…However, based upon manuscript submission to this Journal, there is still less than 30% compliance by research laboratories worldwide primarily because high quality fully transparent research can be costly and there is insufficient funding available (see [30]). For the benefit of the stroke research community worldwide, we must first reiterate the basic recommendations resulting from the 2012 NINDS transparency in research workshop, which were published in the Journal of Neurology and Neurophysiology, Stroke, Translational Stroke Research and Nature among other journals [21][22][23][24].…”

“…& Dr. Malcolm Macleod and colleague, Dr. Emily Sena from the University of Edinburgh, summarized the CAMARADES effort and emphasized that researchers need to define the method of randomization, conduct power analysis and conduct studies blinded [see RIGOR guidelines above [21][22][23][24]. & Committee members recommended that aged animals be used for stroke research, comorbid conditions need to be represented (see [31,32,33]), chronic stroke models (months of survival) should be developed because rodents display adaptive plasticity, and stroke studies should incorporate atrial fibrillation, hypoperfusion, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and white matter damage.…”

Thermoneutrality, Mice, and Cancer: A Heated Opinion

“…Many authors have asserted that a major problem in research is irreproducibility [80,81,84,85]. Landis and colleagues point to the general dearth of information on the 'design, conduct and analysis of the experiments' [86]. These authors suggest that 'a core set of research parameters must be defined and should be addressed when reporting the results of animal experiments' and stated that a 'concerted effort by all stakeholders, including funding agencies and journals, will be necessary to disseminate and implement best reporting practices throughout the research community.'…”

In Pursuit of Greater Reproducibility and Credibility of Early Clinical Biomarker Research

“…Recognition of the problem of irreproducibility of preclinical drug development research led to a call for transparent reporting standards and recommendations for improved study designs 1. Similar principles apply to early research aiming to develop clinical biomarker tests (henceforth termed “early clinical biomarker research”), but there are important differences too.…”