Cargando…
‘Invisible actors’—How poor methodology reporting compromises mouse models of oncology: A cross-sectional survey
The laboratory mouse is a key player in preclinical oncology research. However, emphasis of techniques reporting at the expense of critical animal-related detail compromises research integrity, animal welfare, and, ultimately, the translation potential of mouse-based oncology models. To evaluate cur...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9584398/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36264974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274738 |
_version_ | 1784813255368114176 |
---|---|
author | Nunamaker, Elizabeth A. Reynolds, Penny S. |
author_facet | Nunamaker, Elizabeth A. Reynolds, Penny S. |
author_sort | Nunamaker, Elizabeth A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The laboratory mouse is a key player in preclinical oncology research. However, emphasis of techniques reporting at the expense of critical animal-related detail compromises research integrity, animal welfare, and, ultimately, the translation potential of mouse-based oncology models. To evaluate current reporting practices, we performed a cross-sectional survey of 400 preclinical oncology studies using mouse solid-tumour models. Articles published in 2020 were selected from 20 journals that specifically endorsed the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) preclinical reporting guidelines. We assessed reporting compliance for 22 items in five domains: ethical oversight assurance, animal signalment, husbandry, welfare, and euthanasia. Data were analysed using hierarchical generalised random-intercept models, clustered on journal. Overall, reporting of animal-related items was poor. Median compliance over all categories was 23%. There was little or no association between extent of reporting compliance and journal or journal impact factor. Age, sex, and source were reported most frequently, but verifiable strain information was reported for <10% of studies. Animal husbandry, housing environment, and welfare items were reported by <5% of studies. Fewer than one in four studies reported analgesia use, humane endpoints, or an identifiable method of euthanasia. Of concern was the poor documentation of ethical oversight information. Fewer than one in four provided verifiable approval information, and almost one in ten reported no information, or information that was demonstrably false. Mice are the “invisible actors” in preclinical oncology research. In spite of widespread endorsement of reporting guidelines, adherence to reporting guidelines on the part of authors is poor and journals fail to enforce guideline reporting standards. In particular, the inadequate reporting of key animal-related items severely restricts the utility and translation potential of mouse models, and results in research waste. Both investigators and journals have the ethical responsibility to ensure animals are not wasted in uninformative research. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9584398 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95843982022-10-21 ‘Invisible actors’—How poor methodology reporting compromises mouse models of oncology: A cross-sectional survey Nunamaker, Elizabeth A. Reynolds, Penny S. PLoS One Research Article The laboratory mouse is a key player in preclinical oncology research. However, emphasis of techniques reporting at the expense of critical animal-related detail compromises research integrity, animal welfare, and, ultimately, the translation potential of mouse-based oncology models. To evaluate current reporting practices, we performed a cross-sectional survey of 400 preclinical oncology studies using mouse solid-tumour models. Articles published in 2020 were selected from 20 journals that specifically endorsed the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) preclinical reporting guidelines. We assessed reporting compliance for 22 items in five domains: ethical oversight assurance, animal signalment, husbandry, welfare, and euthanasia. Data were analysed using hierarchical generalised random-intercept models, clustered on journal. Overall, reporting of animal-related items was poor. Median compliance over all categories was 23%. There was little or no association between extent of reporting compliance and journal or journal impact factor. Age, sex, and source were reported most frequently, but verifiable strain information was reported for <10% of studies. Animal husbandry, housing environment, and welfare items were reported by <5% of studies. Fewer than one in four studies reported analgesia use, humane endpoints, or an identifiable method of euthanasia. Of concern was the poor documentation of ethical oversight information. Fewer than one in four provided verifiable approval information, and almost one in ten reported no information, or information that was demonstrably false. Mice are the “invisible actors” in preclinical oncology research. In spite of widespread endorsement of reporting guidelines, adherence to reporting guidelines on the part of authors is poor and journals fail to enforce guideline reporting standards. In particular, the inadequate reporting of key animal-related items severely restricts the utility and translation potential of mouse models, and results in research waste. Both investigators and journals have the ethical responsibility to ensure animals are not wasted in uninformative research. Public Library of Science 2022-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9584398/ /pubmed/36264974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274738 Text en © 2022 Nunamaker, Reynolds https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://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 Nunamaker, Elizabeth A. Reynolds, Penny S. ‘Invisible actors’—How poor methodology reporting compromises mouse models of oncology: A cross-sectional survey |
title | ‘Invisible actors’—How poor methodology reporting compromises mouse models of oncology: A cross-sectional survey |
title_full | ‘Invisible actors’—How poor methodology reporting compromises mouse models of oncology: A cross-sectional survey |
title_fullStr | ‘Invisible actors’—How poor methodology reporting compromises mouse models of oncology: A cross-sectional survey |
title_full_unstemmed | ‘Invisible actors’—How poor methodology reporting compromises mouse models of oncology: A cross-sectional survey |
title_short | ‘Invisible actors’—How poor methodology reporting compromises mouse models of oncology: A cross-sectional survey |
title_sort | ‘invisible actors’—how poor methodology reporting compromises mouse models of oncology: a cross-sectional survey |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9584398/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36264974 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274738 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nunamakerelizabetha invisibleactorshowpoormethodologyreportingcompromisesmousemodelsofoncologyacrosssectionalsurvey AT reynoldspennys invisibleactorshowpoormethodologyreportingcompromisesmousemodelsofoncologyacrosssectionalsurvey |