The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research
Open accessAbstract
Deficiencies in methods reporting in animal experimentation lead to difficulties in reproducing experiments; the authors propose a set of reporting standards to improve scientific communication and study design. Animal studies have contributed immensely to our understanding of diseases and assist the development of new therapies, but inadequate experimental reporting can sometimes render such studies difficult to reproduce and to translate into the clinic. This year, a US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke workshop addressed this issue, and its conclusions are discussed in a Perspective piece in this issue of Nature. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum, studies should report on randomization, blinding, sample-size estimation and how the data were handled. The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke convened major stakeholders in June 2012 to discuss how to improve the methodological reporting of animal studies in grant applications and publications. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum studies should report on sample-size estimation, whether and how animals were randomized, whether investigators were blind to the treatment, and the handling of data. We recognize that achieving a meaningful improvement in the quality of reporting will require a concerted effort by investigators, reviewers, funding agencies and journal editors. Requiring better reporting of animal studies will raise awareness of the importance of rigorous study design to accelerate scientific progress.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In a hypothesis-testing study powered to detect an effect on the primary outcome measure, data on secondary outcomes are used to evaluate additional effects of the intervention, but subsequent statistical analysis of secondary outcome measures may be underpowered, making results and interpretation less reliable [88,93].”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [93]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In contrast, greater use of measures to control risk of bias in animal experiments, such as randomization and blinding (Landis et al., 2012), was correlated with greater effect size decreases in replications.”
From Estimating the replicability of Brazilian biomedical science (2025) · cites this paper as Landis et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Other factors have been identified that could improve replicability, such as blinding, randomization, and sample size planning (Landis et al., 2012; Macleod and Mohan, 2019).”
From Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology (2021) · cites this paper as Landis et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The low replication success rates and small effect sizes we found reinforce prior calls for improving the rigor and transparency of preclinical research to improve the allocation of limited resources and to protect human participants from being enrolled in trials that are based on weak evidence”
From Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology (2021) · cites this paper as Landis et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“By providing a comprehensive set of recommendations that are specifically tailored to the description of in vivo research, they help authors reporting animal experiments adhere to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) standards [43] and the minimum standards framework and checklist (Materials, Design, Analysis and Reporting [MDAR] [47]).”
From The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research (2020) · cites this paper as [43]
In the citing paper
“The standards have been adopted by the National Institutes of Health (8,70).”
From Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data (2016) · cites this paper as [70]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 · Cited by 13,371
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gotzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., Elbourne, D., Egger, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c869 · Cited by 8,883
Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412 · Cited by 7,300
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics · doi:10.4103/0976-500x.72351 · Cited by 6,277
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702
Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists
Nakagawa, S., & Cuthill, I. C. (2007) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2007.00027.x · Cited by 3,835
Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 · Cited by 3,309
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/483531a · Cited by 2,979
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-1-2 · Cited by 2,755
Wood, L., Egger, M., Gluud, L. L., Schulz, K. F., Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., Gluud, C., Martin, R. M., Wood, A. J. G., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.ad · Cited by 2,538
CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., & for the CONSORT Group (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000251 · Cited by 2,296
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
Self-citationCan Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?
van der Worp, H. B., Howells, D. W., Sena, E. S., Porritt, M. J., Rewell, S., O'Collins, V., & Macleod, M. R. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245 · Cited by 1,354
Self-citationUpdate of the Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable Preclinical Recommendations
Fisher, M., Feuerstein, G., Howells, D. W., Hurn, P. D., Kent, T. A., Savitz, S. I., & Lo, E. H. (2009) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.541128 · Cited by 1,352
Self-citationRecommendations for Standards Regarding Preclinical Neuroprotective and Restorative Drug Development
Roundtable, S. T. A. I. (1999) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.30.12.2752 · Cited by 1,256
Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries
Fanelli, D. (2012) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7 · Cited by 1,248
Guidelines for the Design and Statistical Analysis of Experiments Using Laboratory Animals
Festing, M. F. W., & Altman, D. G. (2002) · ILAR Journal · doi:10.1093/ilar.43.4.244 · Cited by 1,110
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases
Song, F., Parekh, Hooper, L., Loke, Y., Ryder, J., Sutton, A., Hing, C., Kwok, C., Pang, C., & Harvey, I. (2010) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta14080 · Cited by 1,039
Sterling, T. D. (1959) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1959.10501497 · Cited by 964
Bayesian Versus Orthodox Statistics: Which Side Are You On?
Dienes, Z. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691611406920 · Cited by 938
Plint, A. C., Moher, D., Morrison, A., Schulz, K., Altman, D. G., Hill, C., & Gaboury, I. (2006) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00557.x · Cited by 872
Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials
Chalmers, T. C., Celano, P., Sacks, H. S., & Smith, H. (1983) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198312013092204 · Cited by 864
Kilkenny, C., Parsons, N., Kadyszewski, E., Festing, M. F. W., Cuthill, I. C., Fry, D., Hutton, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007824 · Cited by 860
Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data
Fanelli, D. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271 · Cited by 805
Pooling of Animal Experimental Data Reveals Influence of Study Design and Publication Bias
Macleod, M. R., O’Collins, T., Howells, D. W., & Donnan, G. A. (2004) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000125719.25853.20 · Cited by 734
Self-citation“Positive” results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences
Fanelli, D. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068 · Cited by 734
Translation of Research Evidence From Animals to Humans
Hackam, D. G., & Redelmeier, D. A. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.14.1731 · Cited by 733
Statistical Problems in the Reporting of Clinical Trials
Pocock, S., Hughes, M. D., & Lee, R. J. (1987) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198708133170706 · Cited by 663
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
Self-citationDesign, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS
Scott, S., Kranz, J. E., Cole, J., Lincecum, J. M., Thompson, K., Kelly, N., Bostrom, A., Theodoss, J., Al‐Nakhala, B. M., Vieira, F. G., et al. (2008) · Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis · doi:10.1080/17482960701856300 · Cited by 504
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2019) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2019.1579573 · Cited by 474
Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials
Pildal, J., Hrobjartsson, A., Jorgensen, K., Hilden, J., Altman, D., & Gotzsche, P. (2007) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dym087 · Cited by 472
The problem of pseudoreplication in neuroscientific studies: is it affecting your analysis?
Lazic, S. E. (2010) · BMC Neuroscience · doi:10.1186/1471-2202-11-5 · Cited by 381
Self-citationHow can we improve the pre-clinical development of drugs for stroke?
Sena, E. S., van der Worp, H. B., Howells, D. W., & Macleod, M. R. (2007) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2007.06.009 · Cited by 367
Self-citationDesign and Statistical Methods in Studies Using Animal Models of Development
Festing, M. F. W. (2006) · ILAR Journal · doi:10.1093/ilar.47.1.5 · Cited by 360
Guidelines for preclinical animal research in ALS/MND: A consensus meeting
Ludolph, A. C., Bendotti, C., Blaugrund, E., Chiò, A., Greensmith, L., Loeffler, J., Mead, R. J., Niessen, H. G., Petri, S., Pradat, P., et al. (2010) · Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis · doi:10.3109/17482960903545334 · Cited by 320
Macleod, M. R., van der Worp, H. B., Sena, E. S., Howells, D. W., Dirnagl, U., & Donnan, G. A. (2008) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.515957 · Cited by 319
Self-citationCallaham, M. L. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.254 · Cited by 304
Emergency medicine animal research: does use of randomization and blinding affect the results?
Bebarta, V., Luyten, D., & Heard, K. (2003) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00056.x · Cited by 244
Empirical Evidence of Bias in the Design of Experimental Stroke Studies
Crossley, N. A., Sena, E. S., Göhler, J., Horn, J., van der Worp, H. B., Bath, P. M., Macleod, M. R., & Dirnagl, U. (2008) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.107.498725 · Cited by 235
Self-citationAlmost all articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant results
Kyzas, P., Denaxa-Kyza, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2007) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2007.08.030 · Cited by 233
Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement
Kane, R. L., Wang, J., & Garrard, J. M. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.016 · Cited by 226
Practical Guidelines for Multiplicity Adjustment in Clinical Trials
Proschan, M. A., & Waclawiw, M. A. (2000) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(00)00106-9 · Cited by 226
Replication and reproducibility in spinal cord injury research
Steward, O., Popovich, P. G., Dietrich, W. D., & Kleitman, N. (2012) · Experimental Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2011.06.017 · Cited by 186
Self-citationSystematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bouter, L. M., Zeegers, M., & Lee, T. (2023) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394323104.ch11 · Cited by 183
Improving the translational hit of experimental treatments in multiple sclerosis
Vesterinen, H. M., Sena, E. S., ffrench-Constant, C., Williams, A., Chandran, S., & Macleod, M. R. (2010) · Multiple Sclerosis Journal · doi:10.1177/1352458510379612 · Cited by 182
Self-citationSystematic Review and Metaanalysis of the Efficacy of FK506 in Experimental Stroke
Macleod, M. R., O’Collins, T., Horky, L. L., Howells, D. W., & Donnan, G. A. (2005) · Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism · doi:10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600064 · Cited by 176
Self-citationMoher, D., Simera, I., Schulz, K. F., Hoey, J., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-6-13 · Cited by 153
Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review
Moher, D., Weeks, L., Ocampo, M., Seely, D., Sampson, M., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Miller, D., Simera, I., Grimshaw, J., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.013 · Cited by 151
Dickersin, K., & Chalmers, I. (2011) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1258/jrsm.2011.11k042 · Cited by 149
Prady, S. L., Richmond, S. J., Morton, V. M., & MacPherson, H. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001577 · Cited by 145
Accelerating drug discovery for Alzheimer's disease: best practices for preclinical animal studies
Shineman, D. W., Basi, G. S., Bizon, J. L., Colton, C. A., Greenberg, B., Hollister, B. A., Lincecum, J. M., Leblanc, G. G., Lee, L. H., Luo, F. R., et al. (2011) · Alzheimer s Research & Therapy · doi:10.1186/alzrt90 · Cited by 139
Self-citationSystematic review and meta‐analysis of the efficacy of melatonin in experimental stroke
Macleod, M. R., O'Collins, T., Horky, L. L., Howells, D., & Donnan, G. A. (2005) · Journal of Pineal Research · doi:10.1111/j.1600-079x.2004.00172.x · Cited by 137
Self-citationSena, E., Briscoe, C., Howells, D., Donnan, G., Sandercock, P., & Macleod, M. (2010) · Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2010.116 · Cited by 118
Self-citationA Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Erythropoietin in Experimental Stroke
Jerndal, M. J., Forsberg, K. O., Sena, E., Macleod, M. R., O'Collins, V. E., Lindén, T., Nilsson, M., & Howells, D. W. (2010) · Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2009.267 · Cited by 110
Self-citationEmergency Medicine Animal Research: Does Use of Randomization and Blinding Affect the Results?
Bebarta, V. (2003) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1197/aemj.10.6.684 · Cited by 79
Dopamine agonists in animal models of Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Rooke, E. D., Vesterinen, H. M., Sena, E. S., Egan, K. J., & Macleod, M. R. (2011) · Parkinsonism & Related Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.parkreldis.2011.02.010 · Cited by 76
Self-citationPharmacotherapy and Behavioral Intervention for Alcohol Dependence
Kiefer, F., & Mann, K. F. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.14.1727-b · Cited by 72
Smith, B. A., Lee, H.-J., Lee, J. H., Choi, M., Jones, D. E., Bausell, R. B., & Broome, M. E. (2008) · Nursing Outlook · doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2007.09.002 · Cited by 67
Preclinical studies of human disease: Time to take methodological quality seriously
van der Worp, H. B., & Macleod, M. R. (2011) · Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.yjmcc.2011.04.008 · Cited by 58
Self-citationA Problem in Statistical Analysis: Simultaneous Inference
Beal, K. G., & Khamis, H. J. (1991) · Ornithological Applications · doi:10.2307/3247741 · Cited by 49
Pharmacokinetic/ Pharmacodynamic‐Driven Drug Development
Gallo, J. M. (2010) · Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine · doi:10.1002/msj.20193 · Cited by 47
Wheble, P. C. R., Sena, E. S., & Macleod, M. R. (2007) · Cerebrovascular Diseases · doi:10.1159/000111493 · Cited by 41
Self-citationStatistical Design Considerations in Animal Studies Published Recently in Cancer Research
Hess, K. R. (2011) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-10-3296 · Cited by 36
All Is Not Well in the World of Translational Research
Unger, E. F. (2007) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.04.067 · Cited by 30
Self-citationPublishing Negative Results: The Problem of Publication Bias
Rockwell, S., Kimler, B. F., & Moulder, J. E. (2006) · Radiation Research · doi:10.1667/rr3573.1 · Cited by 18
Dealing with publication bias in translational stroke research
Liu, S. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Stroke and Translational Medicine · doi:10.6030/1939-067x-2.1.16 · Cited by 8
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data
Gillies, R. J., Kinahan, P. E., & Hricak, H. (2016) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2015151169 · Cited by 8,421
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410 · Cited by 5,939
Self-citationThe ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
du Sert, N. P., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · Experimental Physiology · doi:10.1113/ep088870 · Cited by 3,547
Self-citationReporting 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
“In a hypothesis-testing study powered to detect an effect on the primary outcome measure, data on secondary outcomes are used to evaluate additional effects of the intervention, but subsequent statistical analysis of secondary outcome measures may be underpowered, making results and interpretation less reliable [88,93…”
BackgroundSelf-citationPolicy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies
Clayton, J. A., & Collins, F. S. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/509282a · Cited by 1,816
Metadata
- Authors
- Landis, S. C., Amara, S. G., Asadullah, K., Austin, C. P., Blumenstein, R., Bradley, E. W., Crystal, R. G., Darnell, R. B., Ferrante, R. J., Fillit, H., Finkelstein, R., Fisher, M., Gendelman, H. E., Golub, R. M., Goudreau, J. L., Gross, R. A., Gubitz, A. K., Hesterlee, S. E., Howells, D. W., Huguenard, J., Kelner, K., Koroshetz, W., Krainc, D., Lazic, S. E., Levine, M. S., Macleod, M. R., McCall, J. M., Moxley III, R. T., Narasimhan, K., Noble, L. J., Perrin, S., Porter, J. D., Steward, O., Unger, E., Utz, U., & Silberberg, S. D.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Bayer (Germany) (DE)
- CHDI Foundation (US)
- Cornell University (US)
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
- Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation (US)
- University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
- University of Nebraska Medical Center (US)
- American Medical Association (US)
- Michigan State University (US)
- University of Rochester Medicine (US)
- Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy (US)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Stanford University (US)
- American Association For The Advancement of Science (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (CH)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Western General Hospital (GB)
- Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Therapy Development Institute (US)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
- Corresponding author
- Silberberg, Shai D.
- ORCID
- Amara, Susan G.
- Crystal, Ronald G.
- Darnell, Robert B.
- Fillit, Howard
- Fisher, Marc
- Gendelman, Howard E.
- Goudreau, John L.
- Gross, Robert A.
- Howells, David W.
- Huguenard, John
- Koroshetz, Walter
- Krainc, Dimitri
- Lazic, Stanley E.
- Macleod, Malcolm R.
- Porter, John D.
- Steward, Oswald
- Unger, Ellis
- Utz, Ursula
- Silberberg, Shai D.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2012-10
- Volume
- 490
- Issue
- 7419
- Pages
- 187-191
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- PMC
- PMC3511845
- OpenAlex
- W2137516955
- Cited by
- 1,196
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 80 · 2020: 91 · 2019: 87 · 2018: 79 · 2017: 116 · 2016: 136 · 2015: 129 · 2014: 115 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 149.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (Z99 NS999999, 5t32ns007280-35)
- National Institute of Mental Health (P30MH062261, T32MH020016)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (T32NS-007280, P01NS012151, R01NS041574, R01NS034774, R01NS006477)
- National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024160)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- animal experimentation, preclinical research, reporting guidelines, reproducibility, sample size determination, randomization, blinding, data handling, translational research, grant applications, peer review
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Publishing, Random Allocation, Research Design, Statistics as Topic, Sample Size
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
