Abstract
Data quality, reproducibility and reliability are a matter of concern in many scientific fields including biomedical research. Robust, reproducible data and scientific rigour form the foundation on which future studies are built and determine the pace of knowledge gain and the time needed to develop new and innovative drugs that provide benefit to patients. Critical to the attainment of this is the precise and transparent reporting of data. In the current chapter, we will describe literature highlighting factors that constitute the minimum information that is needed to be included in the reporting of in vivo research. The main part of the chapter will focus on the minimum information that is essential for reporting in a scientific publication. In addition, we will present a table distinguishing information necessary to be recorded in a laboratory notebook or another form of internal protocols versus information that should be reported in a paper. We will use examples from the behavioural literature, in vivo studies where the use of anaesthetics and analgesics are used and finally ex vivo studies including histological evaluations and biochemical assays.
Highlights
Data quality, reproducibility and reliability are a matter of concern in many scientific fields including biomedical research
It has been described many times over the last few years that in preclinical research – preclinical animal research – many findings presented in high-profile journals are not reliable and cannot be replicated (Begley and Ellis 2012; Peers et al 2012; Prinz et al 2011)
This has led to the so-called reproducibility crisis which, according to some, may largely be due to the failure to adhere to good scientific and research practices and the neglect of rigorous and careful application of scientific methods (Begley and Ioannidis 2015; Collins and Tabak 2014)
Summary
Reproducibility and reliability are a matter of concern in many scientific fields including biomedical research. Various leading scientific journals have begun to change their review practices and place greater emphasis on experimental details prompting authors to report all relevant information on how the study was designed, conducted and analysed (Curtis and Abernethy 2015; Curtis et al 2015; McGrath and Lilley 2015; McNutt 2014a, b; Nature 2013) Such initiatives may help to ensure transparency and reproducibility of preclinical animal research, thereby improving its reliability and predictive value as well as maximising a successful translation into clinically-relevant applications. The scientific community needs effective, practical and simple tools, maybe in the form of guidelines or checklists, to promote the quality of reporting preclinical animal research Such guiding principles should be used as references earlier in the research process before performing the study, helping scientists to focus on key methodological and analytical principles and to avoid errors in the design, execution and analysis of the experiments. Examples of specific research areas such as behavioural experiments, anaesthesia and analgesia and their possible interference with experimental outcomes as well as ex vivo biochemical and histological analysis will be described
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
