Scholarlink

<p>During the design of hypothesis-driven, comparative laboratory animal experiments, investigators must control for cage effects, ensure full blinding and full randomization while adhering to established experimental designs, notably variations of the Completely Randomized Design and the Randomized Block Designs. Failure to meet these criteria introduces partial or complete confounding by multiple known and unknown variables, resulting in biased outcome measures and rendering valid statistical analysis impossible. Our analysis of a stratified, random sample of comparative laboratory animal experiments conducted in North America and Europe and published in 2022, shows that as few as 0–2.5% utilized valid, unbiased experimental designs. The failure of investigators to adopt valid, unbiased study designs undermines scientific rigour, squanders resources and animal lives, and impedes the reliable translation of preclinical research findings to human and veterinary medicine. We propose practical, achievable solutions focused on enhancing the rigour and validity of study designs. This includes developing a specialized group of scientists with expertise in the design of laboratory animal experiments and data analysis, to ensure future studies are conducted with the highest scientific standards.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A call to action to address critical flaws and bias in laboratory animal experiments and preclinical research

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月21日

查看全文
  • Hugh G. G. Townsend,
  • Klaus Osterrieder,
  • Murray D. Jelinski,
  • Douglas W. Morck,
  • Cheryl L. Waldner,
  • William R. Cox,
  • Volker Gerdts,
  • Andrew A. Potter,
  • Lorne A. Babiuk,
  • James C. Cross

摘要

During the design of hypothesis-driven, comparative laboratory animal experiments, investigators must control for cage effects, ensure full blinding and full randomization while adhering to established experimental designs, notably variations of the Completely Randomized Design and the Randomized Block Designs. Failure to meet these criteria introduces partial or complete confounding by multiple known and unknown variables, resulting in biased outcome measures and rendering valid statistical analysis impossible. Our analysis of a stratified, random sample of comparative laboratory animal experiments conducted in North America and Europe and published in 2022, shows that as few as 0–2.5% utilized valid, unbiased experimental designs. The failure of investigators to adopt valid, unbiased study designs undermines scientific rigour, squanders resources and animal lives, and impedes the reliable translation of preclinical research findings to human and veterinary medicine. We propose practical, achievable solutions focused on enhancing the rigour and validity of study designs. This includes developing a specialized group of scientists with expertise in the design of laboratory animal experiments and data analysis, to ensure future studies are conducted with the highest scientific standards.