Systematic review of guidelines for internal validity in the design, conduct and analysis of preclinical biomedical experiments involving laboratory animals

Vollert, Jan; Schenker, Esther; Macleod, Malcolm; Bespalov, Anton; Wuerbel, Hanno; Michel, Martin; Dirnagl, Ulrich; Potschka, Heidrun; Waldron, Ann-Marie; Wever, Kimberley; Steckler, Thomas; van de Casteele, Tom; Altevogt, Bruce; Sil, Annesha; Rice, Andrew S C (2020). Systematic review of guidelines for internal validity in the design, conduct and analysis of preclinical biomedical experiments involving laboratory animals. BMJ open science, 4(1), e100046. BMJ Publishing Group 10.1136/bmjos-2019-100046

[img]
Preview
Text
e100046.full(2).pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY).

Download (527kB) | Preview

Over the last two decades, awareness of the negative repercussions of flaws in the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical research involving experimental animals has been growing. Several initiatives have set out to increase transparency and internal validity of preclinical studies, mostly publishing expert consensus and experience. While many of the points raised in these various guidelines are identical or similar, they differ in detail and rigour. Most of them focus on reporting, only few of them cover the planning and conduct of studies. The aim of this systematic review is to identify existing experimental design, conduct, analysis and reporting guidelines relating to preclinical animal research. A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science retrieved 13 863 unique results. After screening these on title and abstract, 613 papers entered the full-text assessment stage, from which 60 papers were retained. From these, we extracted unique 58 recommendations on the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical animal studies. Sample size calculations, adequate statistical methods, concealed and randomised allocation of animals to treatment, blinded outcome assessment and recording of animal flow through the experiment were recommended in more than half of the publications. While we consider these recommendations to be valuable, there is a striking lack of experimental evidence on their importance and relative effect on experiments and effect sizes

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

05 Veterinary Medicine > Department of Clinical Research and Veterinary Public Health (DCR-VPH) > Veterinary Public Health Institute
05 Veterinary Medicine > Department of Clinical Research and Veterinary Public Health (DCR-VPH) > Veterinary Public Health Institute > Animal Welfare Division

UniBE Contributor:

Würbel, Hanno

Subjects:

500 Science > 590 Animals (Zoology)
600 Technology > 630 Agriculture

ISSN:

2398-8703

Publisher:

BMJ Publishing Group

Language:

English

Submitter:

Lilian Karin Smith-Wirth

Date Deposited:

14 Jul 2020 12:10

Last Modified:

13 Mar 2021 18:20

Publisher DOI:

10.1136/bmjos-2019-100046

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.145120

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/145120

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback