+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

The study design elements employed by researchers in preclinical animal experiments from two research domains and implications for automation of systematic reviews



The study design elements employed by researchers in preclinical animal experiments from two research domains and implications for automation of systematic reviews



Plos One 13(6): E0199441



Systematic reviews are increasingly using data from preclinical animal experiments in evidence networks. Further, there are ever-increasing efforts to automate aspects of the systematic review process. When assessing systematic bias and unit-of-analysis errors in preclinical experiments, it is critical to understand the study design elements employed by investigators. Such information can also inform prioritization of automation efforts that allow the identification of the most common issues. The aim of this study was to identify the design elements used by investigators in preclinical research in order to inform unique aspects of assessment of bias and error in preclinical research. Using 100 preclinical experiments each related to brain trauma and toxicology, we assessed design elements described by the investigators. We evaluated Methods and Materials sections of reports for descriptions of the following design elements: 1) use of comparison group, 2) unit of allocation of the interventions to study units, 3) arrangement of factors, 4) method of factor allocation to study units, 5) concealment of the factors during allocation and outcome assessment, 6) independence of study units, and 7) nature of factors. Many investigators reported using design elements that suggested the potential for unit-of-analysis errors, i.e., descriptions of repeated measurements of the outcome (94/200) and descriptions of potential for pseudo-replication (99/200). Use of complex factor arrangements was common, with 112 experiments using some form of factorial design (complete, incomplete or split-plot-like). In the toxicology dataset, 20 of the 100 experiments appeared to use a split-plot-like design, although no investigators used this term. The common use of repeated measures and factorial designs means understanding bias and error in preclinical experimental design might require greater expertise than simple parallel designs. Similarly, use of complex factor arrangements creates novel challenges for accurate automation of data extraction and bias and error assessment in preclinical experiments.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 065616292

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 29953471

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199441


Related references

The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies. Ilar Journal 55(3): 427-437, 2015

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Laboratory Animals 45(4): 225-230, 2012

Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Systematic Reviews 7(1): 77, 2018

Threats to validity in the design and conduct of preclinical efficacy studies: a systematic review of guidelines for in vivo animal experiments. Plos Medicine 10(7): E1001489, 2014

Moving toward the automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the second meeting of International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Systematic Reviews 7(1): 3, 2018

Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 6: 10, 2006

A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part. B, Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes 41(7): 1245-1258, 2006

A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Animal Experiments with Guidelines for Reporting. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B: Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes 41(7): 1245-1258, 2006

Design elements employed in the construction of animal skeletons. Unknown, 1991

Systematic reviews of animal experiments. Lancet 360(9333): 586, 2002

Effective elements of school health promotion across behavioral domains: a systematic review of reviews. Bmc Public Health 9: 182, 2009

Systematic reviews of preclinical animal studies can make significant contributions to health care and more transparent translational medicine. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014(3): Ed000078, 2014

Dissemination bias in systematic reviews of animal research: a systematic review. Plos One 9(12): E116016, 2015

A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Systematic Reviews 8(1): 29-29, 2019

Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments Demonstrate Poor Contributions Toward Human Healthcare. Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials 3(2): 89-96, 2008