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

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 and Emily S Sena

PLOS Biology, 2015, vol. 13, issue 10, 1-12

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.A systematic analysis of in vivo research reveals poor reporting of measures that reduce the risk of bias and an inverse relationship between impact factor and the reporting of randomization.

Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file ... 02273&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pbio00:1002273

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Biology from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosbiology ().