Data from: Risk of bias in reports of in vivo research: a focus for improvement

Macleod, Malcolm Robert, University of Edinburgh

McLean, Aaron Lawson, University of Edinburgh

Kyriakopoulou, Aikaterini, University of Edinburgh

Serghiou, Styllianos

de Wilde, Arno

Sherratt, Nicki, University of Edinburgh

Hirst, Theo, University of Edinburgh

Hemblade, Rachel, University of Edinburgh

Bahor, Zsanett, University of Edinburgh

Nunes-Fonseca, Cristina, University of Edinburgh

Potluru, Aparna, University of Edinburgh

Thomson, Andrew, University of Edinburgh

Baginskaite, Julija

Egan, Kieren, University of Edinburgh

Vesterinen, Hanna, University of Edinburgh

Currie, Gillian L., University of Edinburgh

Churilov, Leonid, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health

Howwels, David W.

Sena, Emily S., University of Edinburgh, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health

Serghiou, Stylianos, University of Edinburgh

Baginskitae, Julija, University of Edinburgh

Howells, David W., University of Tasmania

Published Aug 13, 2016 on Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.cs3t8

Cite this dataset

Macleod, Malcolm Robert et al. (2016). Data from: Risk of bias in reports of in vivo research: a focus for improvement [Dataset]. Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.cs3t8

Abstract

The reliability of experimental findings depends on the rigour of experimental design. Here we show limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in a random sample of life sciences publications, significantly lower reporting of randomisation in work published in journals of high impact, and very limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in publications from leading United Kingdom institutions. Ascertainment of differences between institutions might serve both as a measure of research quality and as a tool for institutional efforts to improve research quality.

Usage notes

PLoS biology Figure 1 data

Prevalence of reporting of randomisation, blinded assessment of outcome, sample size calculation and conflict of interest in 146 publications describing in vivo research identified through random sampling from PubMed;

PLoS biology Figure 3 data

Reporting of randomisation, blinded assessment of outcome, sample size calculations and conflict of interest reporting and journal impact factor for 2671 publications describing the efficacy of interventions in animal models of eight different diseases identified in the context of systematic reviews,

PLoS biology Figure 5 data

Reporting of randomisation, blinded assessment of outcome, sample size calculation and of inclusion or exclusion criteria in 1173 publications describing in vivo research published from 5 leading UK institutions (labelled A through E).