Cargando…

Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study

How much can we rely on whether what was reported in a study was actually done? Systematic and independent examination of records, documents and processes through audits are a central element of quality management systems. In the context of current concerns about the robustness and reproducibility o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kurreck, Claudia, Castaños-Vélez, Esmeralda, Freyer, Dorette, Blumenau, Sonja, Przesdzing, Ingo, Bernard, Rene, Dirnagl, Ulrich
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7561085/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33057427
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240719
_version_ 1783595195031355392
author Kurreck, Claudia
Castaños-Vélez, Esmeralda
Freyer, Dorette
Blumenau, Sonja
Przesdzing, Ingo
Bernard, Rene
Dirnagl, Ulrich
author_facet Kurreck, Claudia
Castaños-Vélez, Esmeralda
Freyer, Dorette
Blumenau, Sonja
Przesdzing, Ingo
Bernard, Rene
Dirnagl, Ulrich
author_sort Kurreck, Claudia
collection PubMed
description How much can we rely on whether what was reported in a study was actually done? Systematic and independent examination of records, documents and processes through audits are a central element of quality management systems. In the context of current concerns about the robustness and reproducibility of experimental biomedical research audits have been suggested as a remedy a number of times. However, audits are resource intense and time consuming, and due to their very nature may be perceived as inquisition. Consequently, there is very little experience or literature on auditing and assessments in the complex preclinical biomedical research environment. To gain some insight into which audit approaches might best suit biomedical research in academia, in this study we have applied a number of them in a typical academic neuroscience environment consisting of twelve research groups with about 100 researchers, students and technicians, utilizing the full gamut of state-of-the-art methodology. Several types of assessments and internal as well as external audits (including the novel format of a peer audit) were systematically explored by a team of quality management specialists. An experimental design template was developed (and is provided here) that takes into account and mitigates difficulties, risks and systematic errors that may occur during the course of a study. All audits were performed according to a pre-defined workflow developed by us. Outcomes were assessed qualitatively. We asked for feedback from participating employees in every final discussion of an audit and documented this in the audit reports. Based on these reports follow-up audits were improved. We conclude that several realistic options for auditing exist which have the potential to improve preclinical biomedical research in academia, and have listed specific recommendations regarding their benefits and provided practical resources for their implementation (e.g. study design and audit templates, audit workflow).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7561085
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75610852020-10-21 Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study Kurreck, Claudia Castaños-Vélez, Esmeralda Freyer, Dorette Blumenau, Sonja Przesdzing, Ingo Bernard, Rene Dirnagl, Ulrich PLoS One Research Article How much can we rely on whether what was reported in a study was actually done? Systematic and independent examination of records, documents and processes through audits are a central element of quality management systems. In the context of current concerns about the robustness and reproducibility of experimental biomedical research audits have been suggested as a remedy a number of times. However, audits are resource intense and time consuming, and due to their very nature may be perceived as inquisition. Consequently, there is very little experience or literature on auditing and assessments in the complex preclinical biomedical research environment. To gain some insight into which audit approaches might best suit biomedical research in academia, in this study we have applied a number of them in a typical academic neuroscience environment consisting of twelve research groups with about 100 researchers, students and technicians, utilizing the full gamut of state-of-the-art methodology. Several types of assessments and internal as well as external audits (including the novel format of a peer audit) were systematically explored by a team of quality management specialists. An experimental design template was developed (and is provided here) that takes into account and mitigates difficulties, risks and systematic errors that may occur during the course of a study. All audits were performed according to a pre-defined workflow developed by us. Outcomes were assessed qualitatively. We asked for feedback from participating employees in every final discussion of an audit and documented this in the audit reports. Based on these reports follow-up audits were improved. We conclude that several realistic options for auditing exist which have the potential to improve preclinical biomedical research in academia, and have listed specific recommendations regarding their benefits and provided practical resources for their implementation (e.g. study design and audit templates, audit workflow). Public Library of Science 2020-10-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7561085/ /pubmed/33057427 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240719 Text en © 2020 Kurreck et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kurreck, Claudia
Castaños-Vélez, Esmeralda
Freyer, Dorette
Blumenau, Sonja
Przesdzing, Ingo
Bernard, Rene
Dirnagl, Ulrich
Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study
title Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study
title_full Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study
title_fullStr Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study
title_full_unstemmed Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study
title_short Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study
title_sort improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: a feasibility study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7561085/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33057427
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240719
work_keys_str_mv AT kurreckclaudia improvingqualityofpreclinicalacademicresearchthroughauditingafeasibilitystudy
AT castanosvelezesmeralda improvingqualityofpreclinicalacademicresearchthroughauditingafeasibilitystudy
AT freyerdorette improvingqualityofpreclinicalacademicresearchthroughauditingafeasibilitystudy
AT blumenausonja improvingqualityofpreclinicalacademicresearchthroughauditingafeasibilitystudy
AT przesdzingingo improvingqualityofpreclinicalacademicresearchthroughauditingafeasibilitystudy
AT bernardrene improvingqualityofpreclinicalacademicresearchthroughauditingafeasibilitystudy
AT dirnaglulrich improvingqualityofpreclinicalacademicresearchthroughauditingafeasibilitystudy