More than 3Rs: The importance of scientific validity for harm-benefit analysis of animal research
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Low-powered studies contribute to the poor internal validity of research and risk wasting animals used in inconclusive research.
“Consequently, low-powered studies contribute to the poor internal validity of research and risk wasting animals used in inconclusive research [37].”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [37]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505 · see citing works
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641 · see citing works
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/483531a · Cited by 2,979 · see citing works
Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?
Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1 · Cited by 1,888 · see citing works
The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science
Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T., & Jennions, M. D. (2015) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106 · Cited by 1,388 · see citing works
Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy
Sena, E. S., van der Worp, H. B., Bath, P. M. W., Howells, D. W., & Macleod, M. R. (2010) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000344 · Cited by 600 · see citing works
Evaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases
Tsilidis, K. K., Panagiotou, O. A., Sena, E. S., Aretouli, E., Evangelou, E., Howells, D. W., Salman, R. A.-S., Macleod, M. R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2013) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001609 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
The researchers’ view of scientific rigor—survey on the conduct and reporting of in vivo research
Reichlin, T. S., Vogt, L., & Würbel, H. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165999 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Ioannidis, J.P.A., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D.D. & Goodman, S.N. Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002264 (2015).
- Macleod, M.R. et al. Risk of bias in reports of in vivo research: a focus for improvement. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002273 (2015).
- van der Staay, F.J., Arndt, S.S. & Nordquist, R.E. Evaluation of animal models of neurobehavioral disorders. Behav. Brain Funct. 5, 11 (2009).
- Van der Worp, H.B. et al. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med. 7, e1000245 (2010).
- Richter, S.H. et al. Effect of population heterogenization on the reproducibility of mouse behavior: a multi-laboratory study. PLoS ONE 6, e16461 (2011).
- Würbel, H. Behaviour and the standardization fallacy. Nat. Genet. 26, 263 (2000).
- Würbel, H., Reichlin, T.S., Voelkl, B. & Vogt, L. 2016. More than refinement - improving the validity and reproducibility of animal research. in: Dwyer, C., Haskell, M., Sandilands, V. (eds.), Proc. 50 th Congr. Int. Soc. Appl. Ethol., Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, p. 324.
- Vogt, L., Reichlin, T.S., Nathues, C. & Würbel, H. Authorization of animal experiments is based on confidence rather than evidence of scientific rigor. PLoS Biol. 14, e2000598 (2016).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0
Percie du Sert, N., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., et al. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411 · Cited by 2,677 · see citing works
“Consequently, low-powered studies contribute to the poor internal validity of research and risk wasting animals used in inconclusive research [37].”
BackgroundSelf-citationBarbosa, M. A. G., Xavier, C. P. R., Pereira, R. F., Petrikaitė, V., & Vasconcelos, M. H. (2021) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers14010190 · Cited by 285 · see citing works
Measuring behavior in the home cage: study design, applications, challenges, and perspectives
Grieco, F., Bernstein, B. J., Biemans, B., Bikovski, L., Burnett, C. J., Cushman, J. D., van Dam, E. A., Fry, S. A., Richmond-Hacham, B., Homberg, J. R., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2021.735387 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
How our approaches to assessing benefits and harms can be improved
Sena, E., & Currie, G. (2019) · Animal Welfare · doi:10.7120/09627286.28.1.107 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Tasker, L., Getty, S., Briggs, J., & Benka, V. (2018) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani8020019 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Würbel, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Bern (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Würbel, Hanno
- ORCID
- Würbel, Hanno
- Venue
- Lab Animal
- Published
- 2017-04
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 164-166
- ISSN
- 0093-7355 (ISSN-L)
- 1548-4475
- OpenAlex
- W2600421165
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 17.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Lab Animal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Bundesamt für Lebensmittelsicherheit und Veterinärwesen (2.13.01)
- FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (322576)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
- Keywords
- harm-benefit analysis, animal studies, scientific validity, replication crisis, 3Rs, research ethics, benefit maximization
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Testing Alternatives, Animal Welfare, Animal Experimentation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
