Evaluating Study Design Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Research: A Replication Study.

Keyana Zahiri, Isaiah C Jimenez, Gabrielle C Montenegro, Damini Patel, Adrienne Mueller
{"title":"Evaluating Study Design Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Research: A Replication Study.","authors":"Keyana Zahiri, Isaiah C Jimenez, Gabrielle C Montenegro, Damini Patel, Adrienne Mueller","doi":"10.1101/2023.06.27.546731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Methodological rigor remains a priority in preclinical cardiovascular research to ensure experimental reproducibility and high-quality research. Limited reproducibility diminishes the translation of preclinical discoveries into medical practice. In addition, lack of reproducibility fosters uncertainty in public acceptance of reported research results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated the reporting of methodological practices in preclinical cardiovascular research studies published in leading scientific journals by screening articles for the inclusion of the following study design elements (SDEs): considering sex as a biological variable, randomization, blinding, and sample size power estimation. We screened for these SDEs across articles regarding preclinical cardiovascular research studies published between 2011 and 2021. We replicated and extended a study published in 2017 by Ramirez et al. We hypothesized a higher SDE inclusion across preclinical studies over time, that preclinical studies that include human and animal substudies within the same study will exhibit greater SDE inclusion than animal-only preclinical studies, and that a difference exists in SDE usage between large and small animal models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>SDE inclusion was low; with 15.2% of animal-only studies including both sexes as a biological variable, 30.4% including randomization, 32.1% including blinding, and 8.2% including sample size estimation. The incorporation of SDEs did not significantly increase over the ten-year timeframe in the screened articles. Randomization and sample size estimation differed significantly between animal and human substudies (corrected p=1.85e-05 and corrected p=3.81e-07, respectively.) Conclusions: Evidence of methodological rigor varies depending on the study type and model organisms used. From 2011-2021, SDE reporting within preclinical studies has not increased, suggesting more work is needed to foster the inclusion of rigorous study design elements in cardiovascular research.</p>","PeriodicalId":72407,"journal":{"name":"bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10327086/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.27.546731","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Methodological rigor remains a priority in preclinical cardiovascular research to ensure experimental reproducibility and high-quality research. Limited reproducibility diminishes the translation of preclinical discoveries into medical practice. In addition, lack of reproducibility fosters uncertainty in public acceptance of reported research results.

Methods: We evaluated the reporting of methodological practices in preclinical cardiovascular research studies published in leading scientific journals by screening articles for the inclusion of the following study design elements (SDEs): considering sex as a biological variable, randomization, blinding, and sample size power estimation. We screened for these SDEs across articles regarding preclinical cardiovascular research studies published between 2011 and 2021. We replicated and extended a study published in 2017 by Ramirez et al. We hypothesized a higher SDE inclusion across preclinical studies over time, that preclinical studies that include human and animal substudies within the same study will exhibit greater SDE inclusion than animal-only preclinical studies, and that a difference exists in SDE usage between large and small animal models.

Results: SDE inclusion was low; with 15.2% of animal-only studies including both sexes as a biological variable, 30.4% including randomization, 32.1% including blinding, and 8.2% including sample size estimation. The incorporation of SDEs did not significantly increase over the ten-year timeframe in the screened articles. Randomization and sample size estimation differed significantly between animal and human substudies (corrected p=1.85e-05 and corrected p=3.81e-07, respectively.) Conclusions: Evidence of methodological rigor varies depending on the study type and model organisms used. From 2011-2021, SDE reporting within preclinical studies has not increased, suggesting more work is needed to foster the inclusion of rigorous study design elements in cardiovascular research.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估临床前心血管研究中的研究设计严谨性:一项复制研究。
背景:严格的方法学是临床前心血管研究的首要任务,以确保实验的可重复性和高质量的研究。缺乏再现性导致临床前发现转化为医学实践的减少,并浪费资源。此外,缺乏可重复性导致公众对报告研究结果的接受程度存在不确定性。方法:我们通过筛选包含以下关键研究设计元素(SDE)的文章来评估在领先科学期刊上发表的临床前心血管研究中严格方法论实践的报告:将性别视为生物学变量、随机化、盲法和样本量功率估计。我们特别选择在2011年至2021年间发表的与临床前心血管研究相关的文章中筛选这些SDE。我们的研究复制并扩展了Ramirez等人2017年发表的一项研究。我们假设,随着时间的推移,临床前研究中的SDE纳入率会更高,在同一研究中包括人类和动物亚研究的临床前研究将比仅动物的临床前研究显示出更大的SDE包含率,并且大动物模型和小动物模型之间的SDE使用将存在差异。结果:总体而言,SDE的纳入率较低。15.2%的纯动物研究将两性作为生物学变量,30.4%包括随机化,32.1%包括盲法,8.2%包括样本量估计。在我们评估的文章中,SDE在临床前研究中的掺入在十年时间内没有显著增加。尽管在10年的时间框架内,性别作为一个生物学变量的纳入率有所增加,但这一变化并不显著(p=0.411,校正后p=8.22)。这些趋势在各期刊中是一致的。随机分组和样本量估计的报告在动物和人类亚研究之间存在显著差异(校正后的p分别为3.690e-06和7.252e-08。)与小动物研究相比,大动物研究报告的致盲百分比显著更高(校正后p=0.01。)此外,总体而言,大动物试验往往具有更高的SDE使用率。结论:总之,方法学严谨性的证据因研究类型和使用的模式生物体而异。在2011-2021年期间,临床前心血管研究中SDE的报告没有改善,并表明对心血管研究中使用的其他SDE进行了广泛评估。SDE在研究中的有限结合阻碍了对未来研究至关重要的实验再现性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CRISPRi-based screens in iAssembloids to elucidate neuron-glia interactions. Evaluating Study Design Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Research: A Replication Study. Classification of psychedelics and psychoactive drugs based on brain-wide imaging of cellular c-Fos expression. Disease modification upon brief exposure to tofacitinib during chronic epilepsy. Efficient differential expression analysis of large-scale single cell transcriptomics data using dreamlet.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1