A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: A systematic review

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 12; no. 9; p. e0183591
• Main Authors: Han, SeungHye, Olonisakin, Tolani F, Pribis, John P, Zupetic, Jill, Yoon, Joo Heung, Holleran, Kyle M, Jeong, Kwonho, Shaikh, Nader, Rubio, Doris M, Lee, Janet S
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 13-09-2017; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Animals; Biology and Life Sciences; Biomedical materials; Biomedical research; Biomedical Research - standards; Biomedical Research - statistics & numerical data; Checklist; Clinical trials; Computer centers; Critical care; Data Accuracy; Drug Evaluation, Preclinical - standards; Editorials; Education; Experiments; Humans; In vivo methods and tests; Laboratory animals; Life sciences; Medical research; Medicine; Medicine and Health Sciences; Models, Animal; People and Places; Publications - standards; Publications - statistics & numerical data; Quality; Report writing; Reproducibility; Reproducibility of Results; Research and Analysis Methods; Research Design - standards; Scientometrics; Size estimation; Statistical analysis; Studies; Task forces; Transparency; United States > US; Pittsburgh Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183591

Irreproducibility of preclinical biomedical research has gained recent attention. It is suggested that requiring authors to complete a checklist at the time of manuscript submission would improve the quality and transparency of scientific reporting, and ultimately enhance reproducibility. Whether a checklist enhances quality and transparency in reporting preclinical animal studies, however, has not been empirically studied. Here we searched two highly cited life science journals, one that requires a checklist at submission (Nature) and one that does not (Cell), to identify in vivo animal studies. After screening 943 articles, a total of 80 articles were identified in 2013 (pre-checklist) and 2015 (post-checklist), and included for the detailed evaluation of reporting methodological and analytical information. We compared the quality of reporting preclinical animal studies between the two journals, accounting for differences between journals and changes over time in reporting. We find that reporting of randomization, blinding, and sample-size estimation significantly improved when comparing Nature to Cell from 2013 to 2015, likely due to implementation of a checklist. Specifically, improvement in reporting of the three methodological information was at least three times greater when a mandatory checklist was implemented than when it was not. Reporting the sex of animals and the number of independent experiments performed also improved from 2013 to 2015, likely from factors not related to a checklist. Our study demonstrates that completing a checklist at manuscript submission is associated with improved reporting of key methodological information in preclinical animal studies.