European Quality in Preclinical Data (EQIPD):Een breed consortium voor het verbeteren van de kwaliteit van proefdieronderzoek

Het merendeel van de dierstudies, zowel in de industrie als in de academische wereld, wordt uitgevoerd ten behoeve van de menselijke gezondheid: we gebruiken ze als voorspeller voor effecten in mensen, bijvoorbeeld bij de ontwikkeling van nieuwe geneesmiddelen of medische interventies, in de toxicologie, en ook in fundamenteel onderzoek

Designing, conducting, and reporting reproducible animal experiments

In biomedicine and many other fields, there are growing concerns around the reproducibility of research findings, with many researchers being unable to replicate their own or others' results. This raises important questions as to the validity and usefulness of much published research. In this review, we aim to engage researchers in the issue of research reproducibility and equip them with the necessary tools to increase the reproducibility of their research. We first highlight the causes and potential impact of non-reproducible research and emphasise the benefits of working reproducibly for the researcher and broader research community. We address specific targets for improvement and steps that individual researchers can take to increase the reproducibility of their work. We next provide recommendations for improving the design and conduct of experiments, focusing on in vivo animal experiments. We describe common sources of poor internal validity of experiments and offer practical guidance for limiting these potential sources of bias at different experimental stages, as well as discussing other important considerations during experimental design. We provide a list of key resources available to researchers to improve experimental design, conduct, and reporting. We then discuss the importance of open research practices such as study preregistration and the use of preprints and describe recommendations around data management and sharing. Our review emphasises the importance of reproducible work and aims to empower every individual researcher to contribute to the reproducibility of research in their field.</p

Pharmacological modulation of conditioned fear in the fear-potentiated startle test: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Fear conditioning is an important aspect in the pathophysiology of anxiety disorders. The fear-potentiated startle test is based on classical fear conditioning and over the years, a broad range of drugs have been tested in this test. Synthesis of the available data may further our understanding of the neurotransmitter systems that are involved in the expression of conditioned fear. METHODS: Following a comprehensive search in Medline and Embase, we included 68 research articles that reported on 103 drugs, covering 56 different drug classes. The systematic review was limited to studies using acute, systemic drug administration in naive animals. RESULTS: Qualitative data synthesis showed that most clinically active anxiolytics, but not serotonin-reuptake inhibitors, reduced cued fear. Anxiogenic drugs increased fear potentiation in 35% of the experiments, reduced fear potentiation in 29% of the experiments, and were without effect in 29% of the experiments. Meta-analyses could be performed for five drug classes and showed that benzodiazepines, buspirone, 5-HT 1A agonists, 5-HT 1A antagonists, and mGluR2,3 agonists reduced cued conditioned fear. The non-cued baseline startle response, which may reflect contextual anxiety, was only significantly reduced by benzodiazepines and 5-HT 1A antagonists. No associations were found between drug effects and methodological characteristics, except for strain. CONCLUSIONS: The fear-potentiated startle test appears to have moderate to high predictive validity and may serve as a valuable tool for the development of novel anxiolytics. Given the limited available data, the generally low study quality and high heterogeneity additional studies are warranted to corroborate the findings of this review

Risk of bias reporting in the recent animal focal cerebral ischaemia literature

BACKGROUND: Findings from in vivo research may be less reliable where studies do not report measures to reduce risks of bias. The experimental stroke community has been at the forefront of implementing changes to improve reporting, but it is not known whether these efforts are associated with continuous improvements. Our aims here were firstly to validate an automated tool to assess risks of bias in published works, and secondly to assess the reporting of measures taken to reduce the risk of bias within recent literature for two experimental models of stroke. METHODS: We developed and used text analytic approaches to automatically ascertain reporting of measures to reduce risk of bias from full-text articles describing animal experiments inducing middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) or modelling lacunar stroke. RESULTS: Compared with previous assessments, there were improvements in the reporting of measures taken to reduce risks of bias in the MCAO literature but not in the lacunar stroke literature. Accuracy of automated annotation of risk of bias in the MCAO literature was 86% (randomization), 94% (blinding) and 100% (sample size calculation); and in the lacunar stroke literature accuracy was 67% (randomization), 91% (blinding) and 96% (sample size calculation). DISCUSSION: There remains substantial opportunity for improvement in the reporting of animal research modelling stroke, particularly in the lacunar stroke literature. Further, automated tools perform sufficiently well to identify whether studies report blinded assessment of outcome, but improvements are required in the tools to ascertain whether randomization and a sample size calculation were reported

Protocol for a systematic review of guidelines for rigour in the design, conduct and analysis of biomedical experiments involving laboratory animals

Objective: Within the last years, there has been growing awareness of the negative repercussions of unstandardized planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical and biomedical research. Several initiatives have set the aim of increasing validity and reliability in reporting of studies and publications, and publishers have formed similar groups. Additionally, several groups of experts across the biomedical spectrum have published experience and opinion-based guidelines and guidance on potential standardized reporting. While all these guidelines cover reporting of experiments, an important step prior to this should be rigours planning and conduction of studies. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and harmonize existing experimental design, conduct and analysis guidelines relating to internal validity and reproducibility of preclinical animal research. The review will also identify literature describing risks of bias pertaining to the design, conduct and analysis of preclinical biomedical research. Search strategy: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science will be searched systematically to identify guidelines published in English language in peer-reviewed journals before January 2018 (box 1). All articles or systematic reviews in English language that describe or review guidelines on the internal validity and reproducibility of animal studies will be included. Google search for guidelines published on the websites of major funders and professional organisations can be found in (Box 2). Screening and annotation: Unique references will be screened in two phases: screening for eligibility based on title and abstract, followed by screening for definitive inclusion based on full text. Screening will be performed in SyRF (http://syrf.org.uk). Each reference will be randomly presented to two independent reviewers. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by additional screening of the reference by a third, senior researcher. Data management and reporting: All data, including extracted text and guidelines, will be stored in the SyRF platform. Elements of the included guidelines will be identified using a standardized extraction form. Reporting will follow the PRISMA guidelines as far as applicable

The Usefulness of Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments for the Design of Preclinical and Clinical Studies

Abstract The question of how animal studies should be designed, conducted, and analyzed remains underexposed in societal debates on animal experimentation. This is not only a scientific but also a moral question. After all, if animal experiments are not appropriately designed, conducted, and analyzed, the results produced are unlikely to be reliable and the animals have in effect been wasted. In this article, we focus on one particular method to address this moral question, namely systematic reviews of previously performed animal experiments. We discuss how the design, conduct, and analysis of future (animal and human) experiments may be optimized through such systematic reviews. In particular, we illustrate how these reviews can help improve the methodological quality of animal experiments, make the choice of an animal model and the translation of animal data to the clinic more evidence-based, and implement the 3Rs. Moreover, we discuss which measures are being taken and which need to be taken in the future to ensure that systematic reviews will actually contribute to optimizing experimental design and thereby to meeting a necessary condition for making the use of animals in these experiments justified