IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0043404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Publication Bias in Laboratory Animal Research: A Survey on Magnitude, Drivers, Consequences and Potential Solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Gerben ter Riet
  • Daniel A Korevaar
  • Marlies Leenaars
  • Peter J Sterk
  • Cornelis J F Van Noorden
  • Lex M Bouter
  • René Lutter
  • Ronald P Oude Elferink
  • Lotty Hooft

Abstract

Context: Publication bias jeopardizes evidence-based medicine, mainly through biased literature syntheses. Publication bias may also affect laboratory animal research, but evidence is scarce. Objectives: To assess the opinion of laboratory animal researchers on the magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions for publication bias. And to explore the impact of size of the animals used, seniority of the respondent, working in a for-profit organization and type of research (fundamental, pre-clinical, or both) on those opinions. Design: Internet-based survey. Setting: All animal laboratories in The Netherlands. Participants: Laboratory animal researchers. Main Outcome Measure(s): Median (interquartile ranges) strengths of beliefs on 5 and 10-point scales (1: totally unimportant to 5 or 10: extremely important). Results: Overall, 454 researchers participated. They considered publication bias a problem in animal research (7 (5 to 8)) and thought that about 50% (32–70) of animal experiments are published. Employees (n = 21) of for-profit organizations estimated that 10% (5 to 50) are published. Lack of statistical significance (4 (4 to 5)), technical problems (4 (3 to 4)), supervisors (4 (3 to 5)) and peer reviewers (4 (3 to 5)) were considered important reasons for non-publication (all on 5-point scales). Respondents thought that mandatory publication of study protocols and results, or the reasons why no results were obtained, may increase scientific progress but expected increased bureaucracy. These opinions did not depend on size of the animal used, seniority of the respondent or type of research. Conclusions: Non-publication of “negative” results appears to be prevalent in laboratory animal research. If statistical significance is indeed a main driver of publication, the collective literature on animal experimentation will be biased. This will impede the performance of valid literature syntheses. Effective, yet efficient systems should be explored to counteract selective reporting of laboratory animal research.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerben ter Riet & Daniel A Korevaar & Marlies Leenaars & Peter J Sterk & Cornelis J F Van Noorden & Lex M Bouter & René Lutter & Ronald P Oude Elferink & Lotty Hooft, 2012. "Publication Bias in Laboratory Animal Research: A Survey on Magnitude, Drivers, Consequences and Potential Solutions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-5, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0043404
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0043404
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0043404&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0043404?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily S Sena & H Bart van der Worp & Philip M W Bath & David W Howells & Malcolm R Macleod, 2010. "Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major Overstatement of Efficacy," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lisa Bero, 2018. "Meta-research matters: Meta-spin cycles, the blindness of bias, and rebuilding trust," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-4, April.
    2. Constance Holman & Sophie K Piper & Ulrike Grittner & Andreas Antonios Diamantaras & Jonathan Kimmelman & Bob Siegerink & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2016. "Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Bernhard Voelkl & Lucile Vogt & Emily S Sena & Hanno Würbel, 2018. "Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    4. Jenny T van der Steen & Cornelis A van den Bogert & Mirjam C van Soest-Poortvliet & Soulmaz Fazeli Farsani & René H J Otten & Gerben ter Riet & Lex M Bouter, 2018. "Determinants of selective reporting: A taxonomy based on content analysis of a random selection of the literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, February.
    5. Jonathan Kimmelman & Alex John London, 2011. "Predicting Harms and Benefits in Translational Trials: Ethics, Evidence, and Uncertainty," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-5, March.
    6. Brian P Walcott & Sameer A Sheth & Brian V Nahed & Jean-Valery Coumans, 2012. "Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-4, August.
    7. David Baker & Katie Lidster & Ana Sottomayor & Sandra Amor, 2014. "Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-6, January.
    8. Susanne Wieschowski & Diego S Silva & Daniel Strech, 2016. "Animal Study Registries: Results from a Stakeholder Analysis on Potential Strengths, Weaknesses, Facilitators, and Barriers," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-12, November.
    9. Catriona J MacCallum, 2010. "Reporting Animal Studies: Good Science and a Duty of Care," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-2, June.
    10. Valerie C Henderson & Jonathan Kimmelman & Dean Fergusson & Jeremy M Grimshaw & Dan G Hackam, 2013. "Threats to Validity in the Design and Conduct of Preclinical Efficacy Studies: A Systematic Review of Guidelines for In Vivo Animal Experiments," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    11. Konstantinos K Tsilidis & Orestis A Panagiotou & Emily S Sena & Eleni Aretouli & Evangelos Evangelou & David W Howells & Rustam Al-Shahi Salman & Malcolm R Macleod & John P A Ioannidis, 2013. "Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological Diseases," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-10, July.
    12. Jennifer A Hirst & Jeremy Howick & Jeffrey K Aronson & Nia Roberts & Rafael Perera & Constantinos Koshiaris & Carl Heneghan, 2014. "The Need for Randomization in Animal Trials: An Overview of Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.
    13. Tugce Yildizoglu & Jan-Marek Weislogel & Farhan Mohammad & Edwin S-Y Chan & Pryseley N Assam & Adam Claridge-Chang, 2015. "Estimating Information Processing in a Memory System: The Utility of Meta-analytic Methods for Genetics," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-27, December.
    14. Sven Kepes & Michael A McDaniel, 2015. "The Validity of Conscientiousness Is Overestimated in the Prediction of Job Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, October.
    15. Carol Kilkenny & William J Browne & Innes C Cuthill & Michael Emerson & Douglas G Altman, 2010. "Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-5, June.
    16. Peter E Batchelor & Peta Skeers & Ana Antonic & Taryn E Wills & David W Howells & Malcolm R Macleod & Emily S Sena, 2013. "Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Hypothermia in Animal Models of Spinal Cord Injury," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-10, August.
    17. Adriane Fugh-Berman, 2013. "How Basic Scientists Help the Pharmaceutical Industry Market Drugs," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-5, November.
    18. Susanne Wieschowski & Hans Laser & Emily S Sena & André Bleich & René Tolba & Daniel Strech, 2020. "Attitudes towards animal study registries and their characteristics: An online survey of three cohorts of animal researchers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Lucile Vogt & Thomas S Reichlin & Christina Nathues & Hanno Würbel, 2016. "Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-24, December.
    20. Jonathan A Eisen & Emma Ganley & Catriona J MacCallum, 2014. "Open Science and Reporting Animal Studies: Who's Accountable?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-3, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0043404. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.