Help us improve the FORRT website

Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement

By Aaron Lawson McLean, Aikaterini Kyriakopoulou, Andrew Thomson, Aparna Potluru, Arno de Wilde, Cristina Nunes-Fonseca, David W. Howells, Emily S. Sena, Gillian L. Currie, Hanna Vesterinen, Julija Baginskitae, Kieren Egan, Leonid Churilov, Malcolm R. Macleod, Nicki Sherratt, Rachel Hemblade, Stylianos Serghiou, Theo Hirst, Zsanett Bahor.
Bibliometrics Experimental Design Publishing Research Assessment Research Quality Assessment Research Validity Scientific Publishing Scientists Systematic Reviews

Abstract

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.

Link to resource: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

Type of resources: Reading

Education level(s): Graduate / Professional

Primary user(s): student, teacher

Subject area(s): Biology

Language(s): English

Help us improve the FORRT website

We would be grateful if you could complete this survey. Your feedback will directly inform improvements to navigation, accessibility, and content structure.
Note:All answers are anonymous and will help us make the website better for everyone!

Take the Survey