Kirstine Færgemand Præstegaard

Detailed reporting to safeguard study quality contributes to better translation and reproducibility of preclinical animal studies. In this nationwide study we investigated the reporting prevalence of methodologies and the information’s level of detail. Publications from 2009 and 2018 with at least one affiliation to a Danish university were compared to study possible reporting progress.

A predefined protocol was devised, and a systematic search retrieved all relevant studies. Random sampling of 250 studies from 2009 and 2018 led to evaluation of 500 publications. To identify presence of measures known to impact study results, we applied a two-level scoring “yes/no”. To analyze the reported information’s level of detail, a three-level scoring was conducted.

Reporting prevalence remained low, only minor improvements were noted. Reporting of randomization increased from 24.0% in 2009 to 40.8% in 2018, blinded experiment conduct from 2.4% to 4.4%, blinded outcome assessment from 23.6% to 38.0%, and sample size statements from 3.2% to 14.0%. Details were lacking, e.g., reporting of the method of random allocation to groups being 1.2% in 2009 and 6.0% in 2018, reporting of sample size calculation was respectively 2.4% and 7.6%. Interestingly, conflict-of-interest statements increased from 37.6% to 90.4%.

Reporting of measures to safeguard study quality should be prioritized by all stakeholders. We suggest rigorous teaching in designing, planning, and reporting animal studies and journals should enforce ARRIVE guidelines. Teaching and conduct of systematic reviews could be a good starting point, as the evidence shows this increases motivation and behavior towards quality improvements in science.