TY - JOUR
T1 - A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Han, Seung Hye
AU - Olonisakin, Tolani F.
AU - Pribis, John P.
AU - Zupetic, Jill
AU - Yoon, Joo Heung
AU - Holleran, Kyle M.
AU - Jeong, Kwonho
AU - Shaikh, Nader
AU - Rubio, Doris M.
AU - Lee, Janet S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Han et al. 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.
PY - 2017/9
Y1 - 2017/9
N2 - Irreproducibility of preclinical biomedical research has gained recent attention. It is suggested that requiring authors to complete a checklist at the time of manuscript submission would improve the quality and transparency of scientific reporting, and ultimately enhance reproducibility. Whether a checklist enhances quality and transparency in reporting preclinical animal studies, however, has not been empirically studied. Here we searched two highly cited life science journals, one that requires a checklist at submission (Nature) and one that does not (Cell), to identify in vivo animal studies. After screening 943 articles, a total of 80 articles were identified in 2013 (pre-checklist) and 2015 (post-checklist), and included for the detailed evaluation of reporting methodological and analytical information. We compared the quality of reporting preclinical animal studies between the two journals, accounting for differences between journals and changes over time in reporting. We find that reporting of randomization, blinding, and sample-size estimation significantly improved when comparing Nature to Cell from 2013 to 2015, likely due to implementation of a checklist. Specifically, improvement in reporting of the three methodological information was at least three times greater when a mandatory checklist was implemented than when it was not. Reporting the sex of animals and the number of independent experiments performed also improved from 2013 to 2015, likely from factors not related to a checklist. Our study demonstrates that completing a checklist at manuscript submission is associated with improved reporting of key methodological information in preclinical animal studies.
AB - Irreproducibility of preclinical biomedical research has gained recent attention. It is suggested that requiring authors to complete a checklist at the time of manuscript submission would improve the quality and transparency of scientific reporting, and ultimately enhance reproducibility. Whether a checklist enhances quality and transparency in reporting preclinical animal studies, however, has not been empirically studied. Here we searched two highly cited life science journals, one that requires a checklist at submission (Nature) and one that does not (Cell), to identify in vivo animal studies. After screening 943 articles, a total of 80 articles were identified in 2013 (pre-checklist) and 2015 (post-checklist), and included for the detailed evaluation of reporting methodological and analytical information. We compared the quality of reporting preclinical animal studies between the two journals, accounting for differences between journals and changes over time in reporting. We find that reporting of randomization, blinding, and sample-size estimation significantly improved when comparing Nature to Cell from 2013 to 2015, likely due to implementation of a checklist. Specifically, improvement in reporting of the three methodological information was at least three times greater when a mandatory checklist was implemented than when it was not. Reporting the sex of animals and the number of independent experiments performed also improved from 2013 to 2015, likely from factors not related to a checklist. Our study demonstrates that completing a checklist at manuscript submission is associated with improved reporting of key methodological information in preclinical animal studies.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029470750&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029470750&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0183591
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0183591
M3 - Review article
C2 - 28902887
AN - SCOPUS:85029470750
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 12
JO - PLoS One
JF - PLoS One
IS - 9
M1 - e0183591
ER -