Bailoo JD, Reichlin TS, Würbel H. Refinement of experimental design and conduct in laboratory animal research. ILAR J. 2014;55(3):383–91.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Lowenstein PR, Castro MG. Uncertainty in the translation of preclinical experiments to clinical trials. Why do most phase III clinical trials fail? Curr Gene Ther. 2009;9(5):368–74.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
McGonigle P, Ruggeri B. Animal models of human disease: challenges in enabling translation. Biochem Pharmacol. 2014;87:162–71.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
van der Worp HB, Sandercock PAG. Improving the process of translational research. BMJ. 2012;245: e7837.
Article
Google Scholar
Errington TM, Denis A, Allison AB, Araiza R, Aza-Blanc P, Bower LR, Campos J, Chu H, Denson S, Dionham C, et al. Experiments from unfinished registered reports in the reproducibility project: cancer biology. Elife. 2021;10: e73430.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol. 2015;13: e1002165.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Macleod MR. Why animal research needs to improve. Nature. 2011;477:511.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Macleod MR, Lawson McLean A, Kyriakopoulou A, Serghiou S, de Wilde A, Sherratt N, Hirst T, Hemblade R, Bahor Z, Nunes-Fonseca C, et al. Risk of bias in reports of in vivo research: a focus for improvement. PLOS Biol. 2015;13(11): e1002301.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Wold B, Tabak LA, Advisory Committee to the Director. ACD working group on enhancing rigor, transparency, and translatability in animal. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2021.
Google Scholar
Van Calster B, Wynants L, Riley RD, van Smeden M, Collins GS. Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society. J Clinical Epidemiol. 2021;138:219–26.
Article
Google Scholar
Ledford H. 4 ways to fix the clinical trial. Nature. 2011;477:526–8.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Perrin S. Make mouse studies work. Nature. 2014;507:423–5.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Macleod M. Learning lessons from MVA85A, a failed booster vaccine for BCG. BMJ. 2018;360: k66.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Collier R. Legumes, lemons and streptomycin: a short history of the clinical trial. CMAJ. 2009;180:23–4.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Doll R. Sir Austin Bradford Hill and the progress of medical science. BMJ. 1992;305:1521–6.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Hart PD. A change in scientific approach: from alternation to randomised allocation in clinical trials in the 1940s. BMJ. 1999;319:572–3.
Article
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Peto R. Reflections on the design and analysis of clinical trials and meta-analyses in the 1970s and 1980s. J R Soc Med. 2019;112(2):78–80.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Silverman WA. Personal reflections on lessons learned from randomized trials involving newborn infants from 1951 to 1967. Clin Trials. 2004;1:179–84.
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Breslow NE, Day NE. The role of cohort studies in cancer epidemiology. In: Breslow NE, Day NE, editors. Statistical methods in cancer research. Volume II—the design and analysis of cohort studies. Lyon: IARC Scientific Publications; 1987.
Google Scholar
Armitage P. Before and after Bradford Hill: some trends in medical statistics. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc. 1995;158(1):143–53.
Article
Google Scholar
Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med. 1965;58:295–300.
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Street DJ. Fisher’s contributions to agricultural statistics. Biometrics. 1990;46(4):937–45.
Article
Google Scholar
Box GEP, Draper NR. Empirical model-building and response surfaces. New York: Wiley; 1987.
Google Scholar
Box GEP. Statistics as a catalyst to learning by scientific method part II—a discussion. J Qual Technol. 1999;31(1):16–29.
Article
Google Scholar
Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. 8th ed. London: Wiley; 2013.
Google Scholar
Russell WMS, Burch RL. The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen; 1959.
Google Scholar
Button KS, Ioannidis JPA, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ESJ, Munafò MR. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14:365–76.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Parker RMA, Browne WJ. The place of experimental design and statistics in the 3Rs. ILAR J. 2014;55(3):477–85.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Editorial. The ‘3Is’ of animal experimentation. Nat Genetics. 2012;44(6):611.
Article
Google Scholar
Festing MFW. Randomized block experimental designs can increase the power and reproducibility of laboratory animal experiments. ILAR J. 2014;55:472–6.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Festing MFW, Altman DG. Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. ILAR J. 2002;432:244–58.
Article
Google Scholar
Karp NA, Fry D. What is the optimum design for my animal experiment? BMJ Open Sci. 2021;5: e100126.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Scott S, Kranz JE, Cole J, Lincecum JM, Thompson K, Kelly N, Bostrom A, Theodoss J, Al-Nakhala BM, Viera FG, et al. Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS. Amyotroph Later Scler. 2008;9:4–15.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Lazic SE. Four simple ways to increase power without increasing the sample size. Lab Anim. 2018;52:621–9.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Muhlhauser BS, Bloomfield FH, Gillman MW. Whole animal experiments should be more like human randomized controlled trials. PLoS Biol. 2013;11(2): e1001481.
Article
Google Scholar
Errington TM, Denis A, Perfito N, Iorns E, Nosek BA. Challenges for assessing replicability in preclinical cancer biology. Elife. 2021;10: e67995.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Macleod MR, Mohan S. Reproducibility and rigor in animal-based research. ILAR J. 2020;60:17–23.
Article
Google Scholar
Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MF, Cuthill IC, Fry D, Hutton J, Altman DG. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(11): e0007824.
Article
Google Scholar
Gaur A, Merz-Nideroest B, Zobel A. Clinical trials, good clinical practice, regulations, and compliance. Regul Focus Quart. 2021;1(1):15–31.
Google Scholar
Silverman J, Macy J, Preisig P. The role of the IACUC in ensuring research reproducibility. Lab Anim (NY). 2017;46(4):129–35.
Article
Google Scholar
Diong J, Butler AA, Gandevia SC, Héroux ME. Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite editorial advice. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8): e0202121.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Lang TA, Altman DG. Basic statistical reporting for articles published in clinical medical journals the SAMPL Guidelines. In: Smart P, Masisonneuve H, Polderman AKS, editors. Science editors’ handbook. Paris: European Association of Science; 2013.
Google Scholar
Makin TR, De Orban Xivry J-J. Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript. Elife. 2019;8: e48175.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Preece DA. The design and analysis of experiments: what has gone wrong? Util Mathematica. 1982;21:201–44.
Google Scholar
Preece DA. Illustrative examples: illustrative of what? J Roy Stat Soc Ser D. 1986;35(1):33–44.
Google Scholar
Preece DA. Good statistical practice. J Roy Stat Soc Ser D. 1987;36(4):397–408.
Google Scholar
Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN, Altman DG. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31:337–50.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Nuzzo R. Statistical errors. Nature. 2014;506:150–2.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Marcus E. A STAR is born. Cell. 2016;166:1059–60.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.
Google Scholar
Karp NA. Reproducible preclinical research—is embracing variability the answer? PLoS Biol. 2018;16(3): e2005413.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(6): e1000412.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Altman DG, Bland JM. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ. 1999;318:1209.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Hirst JA, Howick J, Aronson JK, Roberts N, Perera R, Koshiaris C, Heneghan C. The need for randomization in animal trials: an overview of systematic reviews. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e98856.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Reynolds PS, Garvan CW. Gap analysis of animal-based hemorrhage control research. “Houses of brick or mansions of straw?” Miltary Med. 2020;185:85–95.
Google Scholar
Festing MFW. The “completely randomised” and the “randomised block” are the only experimental designs suitable for widespread use in pre-clinical research. Sci Rep. 2020;10:17577.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Lazic SE, Clarke-Williams CJ, Munafò MR. What exactly is “N” in cell culture and animal experiments? PLoS Biol. 2018;16: e2005282.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Parsons NR, Teare MD, Sitch AJ. Unit of analysis issues in laboratory-based research. eLife. 2018;7: e32486.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Frommlet F, Heinze G. Experimental replications in animal trials. Lab Anim. 2021;55(1):65–75.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bolt T, Nomi JS, Bzdok D, Uddin L. Educating the future generation of researchers: A cross-disciplinary survey of trends in analysis methods. PLoS Biol. 2021;19(7): e3001313.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Gosselin RD. Insufficient transparency of statistical reporting in preclinical research: a scoping review. Sci Rep. 2021;11:3335.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Nevalainen T. Animal husbandry and experimental design. ILAR J. 2014;55(3):392–8.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Tukey JW. Unsolved problems of experimental statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1954;49:706–31.
Google Scholar
Baker M. Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature. 2016;533:452–4.
Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Brown AW, Kaisera K, Allison DB. Issues with data and analyses: errors, underlying themes, and potential solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115(11):2563–70.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Sena ES, Currie GL. How our approaches to assessing benefits and harms can be improved. Anim Welf. 2019;28:107–15.
Article
Google Scholar
Fisher RA. Presidential address to the first indian statistical congress. Sankhya. 1938;4:14–7.
Google Scholar
Sprent P. Some problems of statistical consultancy. J Roy Stat Soc Ser A. 1970;133(2):139–65.
Article
Google Scholar
Altman DG. Statistics and ethics in medical research: misuse of statistics is unethical. BMJ. 1980;281:1182–4.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Dunn HL. Application of statistical methods in physiology. Physiol Rev. 1929;9(2):275–398.
Article
Google Scholar
Preece DA. Discussion on the papers on `statistics and mathematics’. J Roy Stat Soc Ser D. 1998;47(2):274.
Google Scholar
Preece DA. Biometry in the third world: science not ritual. Biometrics. 1984;40(2):519–23.
Article
Google Scholar
Smith AJ, Clutton RE, Lilley E, Hansen KEA, Brattelid T. PREPARE: guidelines for planning animal research and testing. Lab Anim. 2017;52(2):135–41.
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne W, Clark A, Cuthill IC, Dirnagl U, et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(7): e3000410.
Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Altman DG, Simera I. Using reporting guidelines effectively to ensure good reporting of health research. In: Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Simera I, Wager E, editors. Guidelines for reporting health research: a user’s manual, edn. Chichester: Wiley; 2014. p. 32–40.
Google Scholar