A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research

  • Nature. 2012 Oct 11;490(7419):187-91. doi: 10.1038/nature11556.
Story C Landis  1 ,  Susan G Amara ,  Khusru Asadullah ,  Chris P Austin ,  Robi Blumenstein ,  Eileen W Bradley ,  Ronald G Crystal ,  Robert B Darnell ,  Robert J Ferrante ,  Howard Fillit ,  Robert Finkelstein ,  Marc Fisher ,  Howard E Gendelman ,  Robert M Golub ,  John L Goudreau ,  Robert A Gross ,  Amelie K Gubitz ,  Sharon E Hesterlee ,  David W Howells ,  John Huguenard ,  Katrina Kelner ,  Walter Koroshetz ,  Dimitri Krainc ,  Stanley E Lazic ,  Michael S Levine ,  Malcolm R Macleod ,  John M McCall ,  Richard T Moxley 3rd ,  Kalyani Narasimhan ,  Linda J Noble ,  Steve Perrin ,  John D Porter ,  Oswald Steward ,  Ellis Unger ,  Ursula Utz ,  Shai D Silberberg
Affiliations
  • 1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
PMID: 23060188 DOI: 10.1038/nature11556
Abstract

The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke convened major stakeholders in June 2012 to discuss how to improve the methodological reporting of animal studies in grant applications and publications. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum studies should report on sample-size estimation, whether and how Animals were randomized, whether investigators were blind to the treatment, and the handling of data. We recognize that achieving a meaningful improvement in the quality of reporting will require a concerted effort by investigators, reviewers, funding agencies and journal editors. Requiring better reporting of animal studies will raise awareness of the importance of rigorous study design to accelerate scientific progress.