Publication rates in animal research. Extent and characteristics of published and non-published animal studies followed up at two German university medical centres


Autoři: Susanne Wieschowski aff001;  Svenja Biernot aff002;  Susanne Deutsch aff003;  Silke Glage aff002;  André Bleich aff002;  René Tolba aff003;  Daniel Strech aff001
Působiště autorů: Institute for Ethics, History, and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany aff001;  Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany aff002;  Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Aachen, Germany aff003;  QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany aff004;  Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany aff005
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223758

Souhrn

Non-publication and publication bias in animal research is a core topic in current debates on the “reproducibility crisis” and “failure rates in clinical research”. To date, however, we lack reliable evidence on the extent of non-publication in animal research. We collected a random and stratified sample (n = 210) from all archived animal study protocols of two major German UMCs (university medical centres) and tracked their results publication. The overall publication rate was 67%. Excluding doctoral theses as results publications, the publication rate decreased to 58%. We did not find substantial differences in publication rates with regard to i) the year of animal study approval, ii) the two UMCs, iii) the animal type (rodents vs. non-rodents), iv) the scope of research (basic vs. preclinical), or v) the discipline of the applicant. Via the most reliable assessment strategy currently available, our study confirms that the non-publication of results from animal studies conducted at UMCs is relatively common. The non-publication of 33% of all animal studies is problematic for the following reasons: A) the primary legitimation of animal research, which is the intended knowledge gain for the wider scientific community, B) the waste of public resources, C) the unnecessary repetition of animal studies, and D) incomplete and potentially biased preclinical evidence for decision making on launching early human trials. Results dissemination should become a professional standard for animal research. Academic institutions and research funders should develop effective policies in this regard.

Klíčová slova:

Animal studies – Publication ethics – Research assessment – Research facilities – Research reporting guidelines – Rodents – Science policy – Scientific publishing


Zdroje

1. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The ethics of research involving animals. Cambridge: Cambridge Publishers Ltd; 2005.

2. DFG. Animal Experimentation in Research, German Research Foundation, http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/geschaeftsstelle/publikationen/tierversuche_forschung_en.pdf. 2016.

3. Research UA. Medical advances and animal research. The contribution of animal science to the medical revolution: some case histories [22.3.2019]. Available from: http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/files/7214/1041/0599/medical-advances-and.pdf.

4. ter Riet G, Korevaar DA, Leenaars M, Sterk PJ, Van Noorden CJ, Bouter LM, et al. Publication bias in laboratory animal research: a survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e43404. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043404 22957028; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3434185.

5. Conradi U, Joffe AR. Publication bias in animal research presented at the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):262. Epub 2017/07/08. doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2574-0 28683761; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5501347.

6. Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PM, Howells DW, Macleod MR. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(3):e1000344. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000344 20361022; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2846857.

7. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ. 2006;333(7568):597–600. Epub 2006/09/16. doi: 10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597 16974018; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1570006.

8. Baker M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature. 2016;533(7604):452–4. doi: 10.1038/533452a 27225100.

9. Begley CG, Buchan AM, Dirnagl U. Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility. Nature. 2015;525(7567):25–7. doi: 10.1038/525025a 26333454.

10. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(9):712. doi: 10.1038/nrd3439-c1 21892149.

11. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483(7391):531–3. doi: 10.1038/483531a 22460880.

12. Schmucker C, Schell LK, Portalupi S, Oeller P, Cabrera L, Bassler D, et al. Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e114023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114023 25536072.

13. Landwirtschaft BfEu. Tierversuchszahlen Gesamt 2014. Available from: https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Tier/Tierschutz/2013-TierversuchszahlenGesamt.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.

14. Kilkenny C, Browne W, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG, Group NCRRGW. Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines. Br J Pharmacol. 2010;160(7):1577–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00872.x 20649561; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2936830.

15. Henderson VC, Kimmelman J, Fergusson D, Grimshaw JM, Hackam DG. Threats to validity in the design and conduct of preclinical efficacy studies: a systematic review of guidelines for in vivo animal experiments. PLoS Med. 2013;10(7):e1001489. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001489 23935460; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3720257.

16. Vogt L, Reichlin TS, Nathues C, Wurbel H. Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(12):e2000598. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000598 27911892; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5135031.

17. American Psychiatric Association. Practice Guideline For The Treatment of Patients With Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias. American Psychiatric Association (APA), Work Group on Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias (Chair: Peter V. Rabins), 2007 Contract No.: Second Edition.

18. Wellcome Trust. Policy on clinical trials—Post-trial requirements; https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/guidance/wellcome-trust-policy-position-clinical-trials accessed 2019.01.30.

19. Wieschowski S, Chin WWL, Federico C, Sievers S, Kimmelman J, Strech D. Preclinical efficacy studies in investigator brochures: Do they enable risk–benefit assessment? PLOS Biology. 2018;16(4):e2004879. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004879 29621228

20. Baker M. ANIMAL REGISTRIES AIM TO REDUCE BIAS. Nature. 2019;573:297–8. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02676-4 31501583

21. Wieschowski S, Silva DS, Strech D. Animal Study Registries: Results from a Stakeholder Analysis on Potential Strengths, Weaknesses, Facilitators, and Barriers. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(11):e2000391. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000391 27832101; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5104355.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11