Dryad
Published August 13, 2016 | Version v1
Dataset Open

Data from: Risk of bias in reports of in vivo research: a focus for improvement

Creators

  • 1. University of Edinburgh
  • 2. Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health
  • 3. University of Tasmania

Description

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.

Notes

PLoS biology Figure 1 data
Prevalence of reporting of randomisation, blinded assessment of outcome, sample size calculation and conflict of interest in 146 publications describing in vivo research identified through random sampling from PubMed;
PLoS biology Figure 3 data
Reporting of randomisation, blinded assessment of outcome, sample size calculations and conflict of interest reporting and journal impact factor for 2671 publications describing the efficacy of interventions in animal models of eight different diseases identified in the context of systematic reviews,
PLoS biology Figure 5 data
Reporting of randomisation, blinded assessment of outcome, sample size calculation and of inclusion or exclusion criteria in 1173 publications describing in vivo research published from 5 leading UK institutions (labelled A through E).

Files

Files (232.1 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:442a76efbfa3ea17b6ba6c449862ee07
15.2 kB Download
md5:fa53ebf79dd8cbcb62427168b3e4eada
146.6 kB Download
md5:d70caf71268d588fc84892a63eae7260
70.3 kB Download

Additional details

Related works

Is cited by
10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273 (DOI)