animals used (i.e., species/strain, sex, and age/weight). Most of the papers surveyed did not report using randomisation (87%) or blinding (86%) to reduce bias in animal selection and outcome assessment. Only 70% of the publications that used statistical methods fully described them and presented the results with a measure of precision or variability [5]. These findings are a cause for concern and are consistent with reviews of many research areas, including clinical studies, published in recent years [2–22].

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412&type=printable

Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research

A study with low statistical power has a reduced chance of detecting a true effect, but it is less well appreciated that low power also reduces the likelihood that a statistically significant result reflects a true effect. Here, we show that the average statistical power of studies in the neurosciences is very low. The consequences of this include overestimates of effect size and low reproducibility of results. There are also ethical dimensions to this problem, as unreliable research is inefficient and wasteful. Improving reproducibility in neuroscience is a key priority and requires attention to well-established but often ignored methodological principles.

/pdf/power-failure-why-small-sample-size-undermines-the-4ftwwuexp7.pdf

Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience

The following guidelines are excerpted (as permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL), with the knowledge and approval of PLoS Biology and the authors) from Kilkenny et al (2010)

​



Table

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00872.x

Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines

The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.

/pdf/transparent-reporting-of-a-multivariable-prediction-model-3n8wy14hp9.pdf

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration.

Improving the reliability and efficiency of scientific research will increase the credibility of the published scientific literature and accelerate discovery. Here we argue for the adoption of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives. There is some evidence from both simulations and empirical studies supporting the likely effectiveness of these measures, but their broad adoption by researchers, institutions, funders and journals will require iterative evaluation and improvement. We discuss the goals of these measures, and how they can be implemented, in the hope that this will facilitate action toward improving the transparency, reproducibility and efficiency of scientific research.

/pdf/a-manifesto-for-reproducible-science-4muga1l76m.pdf

A manifesto for reproducible science

The following guidelines are excerpted (as permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL), with the knowledge and approval of PLoS Biology and the authors) from Kilkenny et al (2010).

​



Table

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1038/jcbfm.2010.220

Animal Research: Reporting in vivo Experiments—The ARRIVE Guidelines:

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/files/89555858/1_s2.0_S1063458412000829_main.pdf

Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research.

For scientific, ethical and economic reasons, experiments involving animals should be appropriately designed, correctly analysed and transparently reported. This increases the scientific validity of the results, and maximises the knowledge gained from each experiment. A minimum amount of relevant information must be included in scientific publications to ensure that the methods and results of a study can be reviewed, analysed and repeated. Omitting essential information can raise scientific and ethical concerns. We report the findings of a systematic survey of reporting, experimental design and statistical analysis in published biomedical research using laboratory animals. Medline and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting research on live rats, mice and non-human primates carried out in UK and US publicly funded research establishments. Detailed information was collected from 271 publications, about the objective or hypothesis of the study, the number, sex, age and/or weight of animals used, and experimental and statistical methods. Only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used. Appropriate and efficient experimental design is a critical component of high-quality science. Most of the papers surveyed did not use randomisation (87%) or blinding (86%), to reduce bias in animal selection and outcome assessment. Only 70% of the publications that used statistical methods described their methods and presented the results with a measure of error or variability. This survey has identified a number of issues that need to be addressed in order to improve experimental design and reporting in publications describing research using animals. Scientific publication is a powerful and important source of information; the authors of scientific publications therefore have a responsibility to describe their methods and results comprehensively, accurately and transparently, and peer reviewers and journal editors share the responsibility to ensure that published studies fulfil these criteria.

http://www.3rs-reduction.co.uk/assets/applets/Kilkenny_Statistics_and_animal_use.journal.pone.0007824.pdf

Carol Kilkenny

Papers

Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research

Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines

Animal Research: Reporting in vivo Experiments—The ARRIVE Guidelines:

Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research.

Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals.