Attitudes towards animal study registries and their characteristics: An online survey of three cohorts of animal researchers

English version

Autoři: Susanne Wieschowski ^aff001; Hans Laser ^aff002; Emily S. Sena ^aff003; André Bleich ^aff004; René Tolba ^aff005; Daniel Strech ^aff001
Působiště autorů: Institute for Ethics, History, and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany ^aff001; Center for Information Management (ZIMt), Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany ^aff002; Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom ^aff003; Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany ^aff004; Institute for Laboratory Animal Science, RWTH Aachen University, Faculty of Medicine, Aachen, Germany ^aff005; QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany ^aff006; Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany ^aff007
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226443

Souhrn

Objectives

Prospective registration of animal studies has been suggested as a new measure to increase value and reduce waste in biomedical research. We sought to further explore and quantify animal researchers’ attitudes and preferences regarding animal study registries (ASRs).

Design

Cross-sectional online survey.

Setting and participants

We conducted a survey with three different samples representing animal researchers: i) corresponding authors from journals with high Eigenfactor, ii) a random Pubmed sample and iii) members of the CAMARADES network.

Main outcome measures

Perceived level of importance of different aspects of publication bias, the effect of ASRs on different aspects of research as well as the importance of different research types for being registered.

Results

The survey yielded responses from 413 animal researchers (response rate 7%). The respondents indicated, that some aspects of ASRs can increase administrative burden but could be outweighed by other aspects decreasing this burden. Animal researchers found it more important to register studies that involved animal species with higher levels of cognitive capabilities. The time frame for making registry entries publicly available revealed a strong heterogeneity among respondents, with the largest proportion voting for “access only after consent by the principal investigator” and the second largest proportion voting for “access immediately after registration”.

Conclusions

The fact that the more senior and experienced animal researchers participating in this survey clearly indicated the practical importance of publication bias and the importance of ASRs underscores the problem awareness across animal researchers and the willingness to actively engage in study registration if effective safeguards for the potential weaknesses of ASRs are put into place. To overcome the first-mover dilemma international consensus statements on how to deal with prospective registration of animal studies might be necessary for all relevant stakeholder groups including animal researchers, academic institutions, private companies, funders, regulatory agencies, and journals.

Klíčová slova:

Animal studies – Survey research – Surveys – Publication ethics – Research grants – Chi square tests – Animal cognition – Theft

Zdroje

1. Kimmelman J, Anderson JA. Should preclinical studies be registered? Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30(6):488–9. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2261 22678379.

2. Utrecht RM. Online register for preclinical animal studies launched. 2017.

3. preclinicaltrials.eu. https://www.preclinicaltrials.eu/documents/Motie_Tjeerd_de_Groot.pdf.

4. BfR. Strengthen science, avoid unnecessary animal experiments 2019. https://www.bfr.bund.de/en/press_information/2019/01/strengthen_science__avoid_unnecessary_animal_experiments-239405.html.

5. Dickersin K, Rennie D. Registering clinical trials. JAMA. 2003;290(4):516–23. Epub 2003/07/24. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.4.516 12876095.

6. Wieschowski S, Silva DS, Strech D. Animal Study Registries: Results from a Stakeholder Analysis on Potential Strengths, Weaknesses, Facilitators, and Barriers. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(11):e2000391. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000391 27832101.

7. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(9):712. doi: 10.1038/nrd3439-c1 21892149.

8. Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PM, Howells DW, Macleod MR. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(3):e1000344. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000344 20361022.

9. ter Riet G, Korevaar DA, Leenaars M, Sterk PJ, Van Noorden CJ, Bouter LM, et al. Publication bias in laboratory animal research: a survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e43404. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043404 22957028.

10. World Medical A. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jama. 2013;310(20):2191–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053 24141714.

11. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(12):1250–1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe048225 15356289.

12. International Cf, (CIOMS) OoMS, the icw, (WHO) WHO. International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans 2016. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf.

13. Rathi V, Dzara K, Gross CP, Hrynaszkiewicz I, Joffe S, Krumholz HM, et al. Sharing of clinical trial data among trialists: a cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2012;345:e7570. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7570 23169870.

14. Laser H. E-Mail_Extractor, https://github.com/HALaser/E-Mail_Extractor/blob/master/python_code.

15. Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method—2007 Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide: John Wiley & Sons; 2011 31.01.2011.

16. Mayring P. Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution 2014.

17. Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4(10):1529–41. Epub 1986/10/01. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1986.4.10.1529 3760920.

18. Dickersin K, Rennie D. The evolution of trial registries and their use to assess the clinical trial enterprise. JAMA. 2012;307(17):1861–4. Epub 2012/05/03. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.4230 22550202.

19. Chambers CD, Forstmann B, Pruszynski JA. Science in flux: Registered reports and beyond at the European Journal of Neuroscience. Eur J Neurosci. 2019;49(1):4–5. doi: 10.1111/ejn.14319 30584679.

20. Carroll HA, Toumpakari Z, Johnson L, Betts JA. The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias. PloS one. 2017;12(10):e0186472. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186472 29065125.

21. Hardwicke TE, Ioannidis JPA. Mapping the universe of registered reports. Nature Human Behaviour. 2018;2(11):793–6. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0444-y 31558810