Cited by 244Animal testing and alternativesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

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 access
Bebarta, Vik, Luyten, Dylan, Heard, Kennon·2003·Academic Emergency Medicine

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00056.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. 10.1016/0002-9343(82)90815-4 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1002/sim.4780080408 · DOI
  3. 10.1002/sim.4780080409 · DOI
  4. 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1001/jama.1994.03510250075039 · DOI
  6. 10.1001/jama.1995.03530180050029 · DOI
  7. 10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 244

Metadata

Authors
Bebarta, V., Luyten, D., & Heard, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Health (US)
  • Denver Health Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
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
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