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

Top Cited Papers
Open Access
Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Deficiencies in methods reporting in animal experimentation lead to difficulties in reproducing experiments; the authors propose a set of reporting standards to improve scientific communication and study design. Animal studies have contributed immensely to our understanding of diseases and assist the development of new therapies, but inadequate experimental reporting can sometimes render such studies difficult to reproduce and to translate into the clinic. This year, a US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke workshop addressed this issue, and its conclusions are discussed in a Perspective piece in this issue of Nature. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum, studies should report on randomization, blinding, sample-size estimation and how the data were handled. 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.