Work

Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement

Year: 2015

Type: article

Abstract: The reliability of experimental findings depends on the rigour of experimental design. Here we show limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in a random sample of life sciences publications, significantly lower reporting of randomisation in work published in journals of high impact, and very limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in publications from leading United Kingdom institutions. Ascertainment of differences between institutions might serve both as a measure of research quality and as a tool for institutional efforts to improve research quality.

Source: PLoS Biology

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

Authors: Malcolm R. Macleod, Aaron Lawson McLean, Aikaterini Kyriakopoulou, Stylianos Serghiou, Arno de Wilde, Nicki Sherratt, Theo Hirst, Rachel Hemblade, Zsanett Bahor, Cristina Nunes-Fonseca, Aparna Potluru, Andrew Thomson, Julija Baginskitae, Kieren Egan, Hanna Vesterinen, Gillian L. Currie, Leonid Churilov, David W. Howells, Emily S. Sena

Institutions: University of Edinburgh, University Medical Center Utrecht, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Tasmania

Language: English

Topic: Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Subfield: Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty

Field: Decision Sciences

Domain: Social Sciences

Open Access status: gold

Estimated APC paid: $5,500

Funders: National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, National Institutes of Health, Medical Research Council

Award: G7517174637

OpenAlex ID: W1950977525

FWCI: 18.36

Cites: 38

Cited by: 355

Related to: 10