skip to main content
Primo Search
Search in: Busca Geral

Do multiple experimenters improve the reproducibility of animal studies?

von Kortzfleisch, Vanessa Tabea ; Ambrée, Oliver ; Karp, Natasha A ; Meyer, Neele ; Novak, Janja ; Palme, Rupert ; Rosso, Marianna ; Touma, Chadi ; Würbel, Hanno ; Kaiser, Sylvia ; Sachser, Norbert ; Richter, S Helene Siegerink, Bob

PLoS Biology, 2022-05, Vol.20 (5), p.e3001564-e3001564 [Periódico revisado por pares]

United States: Public Library of Science

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    Do multiple experimenters improve the reproducibility of animal studies?
  • Autor: von Kortzfleisch, Vanessa Tabea ; Ambrée, Oliver ; Karp, Natasha A ; Meyer, Neele ; Novak, Janja ; Palme, Rupert ; Rosso, Marianna ; Touma, Chadi ; Würbel, Hanno ; Kaiser, Sylvia ; Sachser, Norbert ; Richter, S Helene
  • Siegerink, Bob
  • Assuntos: Analysis of variance ; Animal Experimentation ; Animal welfare ; Animals ; Animals, Laboratory ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Design ; Design standards ; Evaluation ; Experiments ; Genotype & phenotype ; Housing conditions ; Laboratories ; Laboratory tests ; Meta ; Methods ; Physical Sciences ; Reference Standards ; Reproducibility ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Social Sciences ; Standardization ; Variance analysis ; Variation
  • É parte de: PLoS Biology, 2022-05, Vol.20 (5), p.e3001564-e3001564
  • Notas: ObjectType-Article-1
    SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
    ObjectType-Feature-2
    content type line 23
    I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: VvK, OA, NM, JN, RP, MR, CT, HW, SK, NS and SHR declare to have no competing interests. NK is an employee of AstraZeneca. NK has no conflicts of interest with the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript to declare.
  • Descrição: The credibility of scientific research has been seriously questioned by the widely claimed "reproducibility crisis". In light of this crisis, there is a growing awareness that the rigorous standardisation of experimental conditions may contribute to poor reproducibility of animal studies. Instead, systematic heterogenisation has been proposed as a tool to enhance reproducibility, but a real-life test across multiple independent laboratories is still pending. The aim of this study was therefore to test whether heterogenisation of experimental conditions by using multiple experimenters improves the reproducibility of research findings compared to standardised conditions with only one experimenter. To this end, we replicated the same animal experiment in 3 independent laboratories, each employing both a heterogenised and a standardised design. Whereas in the standardised design, all animals were tested by a single experimenter; in the heterogenised design, 3 different experimenters were involved in testing the animals. In contrast to our expectation, the inclusion of multiple experimenters in the heterogenised design did not improve the reproducibility of the results across the 3 laboratories. Interestingly, however, a variance component analysis indicated that the variation introduced by the different experimenters was not as high as the variation introduced by the laboratories, probably explaining why this heterogenisation strategy did not bring the anticipated success. Even more interestingly, for the majority of outcome measures, the remaining residual variation was identified as an important source of variance accounting for 41% (CI95 [34%, 49%]) to 72% (CI95 [58%, 88%]) of the observed total variance. Despite some uncertainty surrounding the estimated numbers, these findings argue for systematically including biological variation rather than eliminating it in animal studies and call for future research on effective improvement strategies.
  • Editor: United States: Public Library of Science
  • Idioma: Inglês

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.