The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Emergency Medicine Animal Research: Does Use of Randomization and Blinding Affect the Results?
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: It has been shown that human clinical trials that lack randomization (RND) or blinding (BLD) often overestimate the magnitude of treatment effects. However, no studies have evaluated the effect of RND and BLD on animal research. The authors' objectives were to determine the proportion of animal studies presented at a national academic emergency medicine meeting that utilize randomization, blinding, or both; and to determine whether failure to employ these techniques changes the likelihood of observing a difference between treatment groups. Methods: Two trained researchers reviewed abstracts presented at the 1997–2001 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) annual meetings using a standard data collection sheet. Studies that used an animal or cell line, compared two or more study groups, and measured an effect caused by the intervention or drugs were included. Studies were classified as randomized (RND+) if any part of the experiment involved random assignment of subjects to treatment groups, blinded (BLD+) if any assessment of the outcome was made by an investigator blinded to treatment group, and outcome‐positive (Outcome+) if any difference between the study groups met the author's definition of significant. Following the initial review, differences in classification were resolved by consensus. The association between outcome and study methodology (RND, BLD or both) was measured using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Results: A total of 2,592 studies were published as abstracts. Three hundred eighty‐nine were animal studies, and 290 of these studies had two or more study groups. RND− and BLD− studies were more likely to be Outcome+ than RND+ or BLD+ studies (OR = 3.4; 95% CI = 1.7 to 6.9 and OR = 3.2; 95% CI = 1.3 to 7.7, respectively). When studies that used both RND and BND were compared with studies that used neither, the OR for a positive study was 5.2 (95% CI = 2.0 to 13.5). Conclusions: These results suggest that animal studies that do not utilize RND and BLD are more likely to report a difference between study groups than studies that employ these methods.
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
“Systematic reviews have shown that animal experiments that do not report randomisation or other bias-reducing measures such as blinding are more likely to report exaggerated effects that meet conventional measures of statistical significance [67–69].”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [69]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.286.7.821 · Cited by 919
Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses?
Berlin, J. A. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)62352-5 · Cited by 478
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- 10.1016/0002-9343(82)90815-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/sim.4780080408 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.4780080409 · DOI
- 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1001/jama.1994.03510250075039 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1995.03530180050029 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · DOI
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
Can 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
A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research
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., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11556 · Cited by 1,196
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
Comparison of Treatment Effects between Animal Experiments and Clinical Trials: Systematic Review
Perel, P., Roberts, I., Sena, E., Wheble, P., Briscoe, C., Sandercock, P., Macleod, M., Mignini, L. E., Jayaram, P., & Khan, K. S. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39048.407928.be · Cited by 827
Metadata
- Authors
- Bebarta, V., Luyten, D., & Heard, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Health (US)
- Denver Health Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Heard, Kennon
- ORCID
- Heard, Kennon
- Venue
- Academic Emergency Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 684-687
- ISSN
- 1069-6563 (ISSN-L)
- 1553-2712
- OpenAlex
- W2139055304
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 6.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Academic Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- animal studies, randomization, blinding, emergency medicine research, methodological quality, overestimation of treatment effects, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Double-Blind Method, Emergency Medicine, Random Allocation, Research Design, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, 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