The Researchers' View of Scientific Rigor Survey on the Conduct and Reporting of In Vivo Research

Reichlin, Thomas Stephan Albin; Vogt, Lucile; Würbel, Hanno (2016). The Researchers' View of Scientific Rigor Survey on the Conduct and Reporting of In Vivo Research. PLoS ONE, 11(12), e0165999. Public Library of Science 10.1371/journal.pone.0165999

Preview

Text 2016-Reichlin et al..pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (3MB) | Preview

Reproducibility in animal research is alarmingly low, and a lack of scientific rigor has been
proposed as a major cause. Systematic reviews found low reporting rates of measures
against risks of bias (e.g., randomization, blinding), and a correlation between low reporting
rates and overstated treatment effects. Reporting rates of measures against bias are thus
used as a proxy measure for scientific rigor, and reporting guidelines (e.g., ARRIVE) have
become a major weapon in the fight against risks of bias in animal research. Surprisingly,
animal scientists have never been asked about their use of measures against risks of bias
and how they report these in publications. Whether poor reporting reflects poor use of such
measures, and whether reporting guidelines may effectively reduce risks of bias has therefore
remained elusive. To address these questions, we asked in vivo researchers about
their use and reporting of measures against risks of bias and examined how self-reports
relate to reporting rates obtained through systematic reviews. An online survey was sent out
to all registered in vivo researchers in Switzerland (N = 1891) and was complemented by
personal interviews with five representative in vivo researchers to facilitate interpretation of
the survey results. Return rate was 28% (N = 530), of which 302 participants (16%) returned
fully completed questionnaires that were used for further analysis. According to the
researchers' self-report, they use measures against risks of bias to a much greater extent
than suggested by reporting rates obtained through systematic reviews. However, the
researchers' self-reports are likely biased to some extent. Thus, although they claimed to be
reporting measures against risks of bias at much lower rates than they claimed to be using
these measures, the self-reported reporting rates were considerably higher than reporting
rates found by systematic reviews. Furthermore, participants performed rather poorly when
asked to choose effective over ineffective measures against six different biases. Our results
further indicate that knowledge of the ARRIVE guidelines had a positive effect on scientific
rigor. However, the ARRIVE guidelines were known by less than half of the participants
(43.7%); and among those whose latest paper was published in a journal that had endorsed
the ARRIVE guidelines, more than half (51%) had never heard of these guidelines. Our
results suggest that whereas reporting rates may underestimate the true use of measures
against risks of bias, self-reports may overestimate it. To a large extent, this discrepancy can be explained by the researchers' ignorance and lack of knowledge of risks of bias and
measures to prevent them. Our analysis thus adds significant new evidence to the assessment of research integrity in animal research. Our findings further question the confidence that the authorities have in scientific rigor, which is taken for granted in the harm-benefit analyses on which approval of animal experiments is based. Furthermore, they suggest that better education on scientific integrity and good research practice is needed. However, they also question reliance on reporting rates as indicators of scientific rigor and highlight a need for more reliable predictors.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

221 since deposited on 02 Feb 2017
15 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item