There is a clear need to optimise the use of animals in research and to ensure that the studies that are done make a worthwhile contribution to scientific knowledge. Research that has an inappropriate study design, or is improperly analysed or interpreted, may mislead and is not defensible. Published reviews of the quality of design and analysis in clinical studies are used to see what lessons can be drawn in respect of animal research. The need for clear and full reporting of research is discussed.
DunnH.L. (1929). Application of statistical methods in physiology. Physiological Reviews9, 275–398.
2.
GreenwoodM. (1932). What is wrong with the medical curriculum?Lanceti, 1269–1270.
3.
AltmanD.G. (1980). Statistics and ethics in medical research: misuse of statistics is unethical. British Medical Journal281, 1182–1184.
4.
AltmanD.G. (1994). The scandal of poor medical research. British Medical Journal308, 283–284.
5.
ChungK.C., KalliainenL.K., SpilsonS.V., WaltersM.R., & KimH.M. (2002). The prevalence of negative studies with inadequate statistical power: an analysis of the plastic surgery literature. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery109, 1–6.
6.
BlandJ.M., & AltmanD.G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1, 307–310.
7.
MussoN.R., DeferrariG., PendeA., VergassolaC., SaffiotiS., GurreriG., & LottiG. (1989). Free and sulfoconjugated catecholamines in normotensive uremic patients: effects of hemodialysis. Nephron51, 344–349.
8.
BlandJ.M., & AltmanD.G. (1994). Some examples of regression towards the mean. British Medical Journal309, 780.
9.
GøtzscheP.C. (1989). Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Controlled Clinical Trials10, 31–56.
10.
MatthewsJ.N.S., & AltmanD.G. (1996). Statistics notes. Interaction 2: compare effect sizes, not P values. British Medical Journal313, 808.
11.
Curran-EverettD., TaylorS., & KafadarK. (1998). Fundamental concepts in statistics: elucidation and illustration. Journal of Applied Physiology85, 775–786.
12.
ElbazM., El MokhtarE., KhalifeK., CitronB., IzaazK., HamonM., JuliardJ.M., LeclercqF., FourcadeJ., LipieckiJ., SabatierR., BouletV., RinaldiJ.P., MouraliS., FatouchM., AsmarA., StegP.G., PuelJ., & CarrieD. (2002). Is direct coronary stenting the best strategy for long-term outcome? Results of the multicentric randomized benefit evaluation of direct coronary stenting (BET) study. American Heart Journal144, E7.
13.
KanterM.H., & TaylorJ.R. (1994). Accuracy of statistical methods in Transfusion: a review of articles from July/August 1992 through June 1993. Transfusion34, 697–701.
14.
McGuiganS.M. (1995). The use of statistics in the British Journal of Psychiatry.British Journal of Psychiatry167, 683–688.
15.
WelchG.E., & GabbeS.G. (1996). Review of statistics usage in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology175, 1138–1141.
16.
McCulloughJ., AsterR.H., BoveJ.R., GarrattyG., IssittP., ObermanH., & PerkinsH. (1994). Statistics in articles published in Transfusion.Transfusion34, 654–655.
17.
Anon. (1996). Statistics usage in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology: toward a better understanding. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology175, 1137.
18.
HandD., & ShamP. (1995). Improving the quality of statistics in psychiatric research. British Journal of Psychiatry167, 689–691.
19.
WelchG.E., & GabbeS.G. (2002). Statistics usage in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology: has anything changed?American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology186, 584–586.
20.
AltmanD.G., SchulzK.F., MoherD., EggerM., DavidoffF., ElbourneD., GøtzscheP.C., & LangT. (2001). The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine134, 663–694.
21.
MarianiL., & MarubiniE. (2000). Content and quality of currently published phase II cancer trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology18, 429–436.
22.
BogardusS., ConcatoJ., & FeinsteinA. (1999). Clinical epidemiological quality in molecular genetic research: the need for methodological standards. Journal of the American Medical Association281, 1919–1926.
23.
FestingM.F.W., & AltmanD.G. (2002). Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. ILAR Journal43, 244–258.
24.
FraserT.B., TurnerS.W., MangosG.J., LudbrookJ., & WhitworthJ.A. (2001). Comparison of telemetric and tail-cuff blood pressure monitoring in adrenocorticotrophic hormone-treated rats. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology28, 831–835.
25.
ShottS. (1985). Statistics in veterinary research. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association187, 138–141.
26.
FestingM.F.W. (1994). Reduction of animal use: experimental design and quality of experiments. Laboratory Animals28, 212–221.
27.
FestingM.F.W., & LovellD.P. (1996). Reducing the use of laboratory animals in toxicological research and testing by better experimental design. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)58, 127–140.
28.
McCanceI. (1995). Assessment of statistical procedures used in papers in the Australian Veterinary Journal.Australian Veterinary Journal72, 322–328.
29.
SchorS., & KartenI. (1966). Statistical evaluation of medical journal manuscripts. Journal of the American Medical Association195, 1123–1128.
30.
FestingM. (2001). Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments in papers submitted to ATLA.ATLA29, 427–446.
31.
EggerM., Davey SmithG., & AltmanD.G. (2001). Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context, 500 pp. London, UK: BMJ Books.
RobertsI., KwanI., EvansP., & HaigS. (2002). Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. British Medical Journal324, 474–476.
34.
HornJ., de HaanR., VermeulenM., LuitenP., & LimburgM. (2001). Nimodipine in animal model experiments of focal cerebral ischemia: a systematic review. Stroke32, 2433–2438.
35.
DickersinK. (1997). How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Education and Prevention9, 15–21.
36.
HuttonJ.L., & WilliamsonP.R. (2000). Bias in meta-analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies. Applied Statistics49, 359–370.
WilliamsJ.L., HathawayC.A., KlosterK.L., & LayneB.H. (1997). Low power, type II errors, and other statistical problems in recent cardiovascular research. American Journal of Physiology273, H487–493.
39.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2003). Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Website www.icmje.org (Accessed 4.12.03).
40.
BeggC., ChoM., EastwoodS., HortonR., MoherD., OlkinI., PitkinR., RennieD., SchulzK.F., SimelD., & StroupD.F. (1996). Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. Journal of the American Medical Association276, 637–639.
41.
MoherD., SchulzK.F., & AltmanD.G. (2001). The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet357, 1191–1194.
42.
MoherD., CookD.J., EastwoodS., OlkinI., RennieD., & StroupD.F. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet354, 1896–1900.
43.
StroupD.F., BerlinJ.A., MortonS.C., OlkinI., WilliamsonG.D., RennieD., MoherD., BeckerB.J., SipeT.A., & ThackerS.B. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. Journal of the American Medical Association283, 2008–2012.
44.
BossuytP.M., ReitsmaJ.B., BrunsD.E., GatsonisC.A., GlasziouP.P., IrwigL.M., LijmerJ.G., MoherD., RennieD., & De VetH.C. (2003). Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Clinical Chemistry49, 1–6.
45.
BossuytP.M., ReitsmaJ.B., BrunsD.E., GatsonisC.A., GlasziouP.P., IrwigL.M., MoherD., RennieD., De VetH.C., & LijmerJ.G. (2003). The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clinical Chemistry49, 7–18.
46.
DevereauxP.J., MannsB.J., GhaliW.A., QuanH., & GuyattG.H. (2002). The reporting of methodological factors in randomized controlled trials and the association with a journal policy to promote adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Controlled Clinical Trials23, 380–388.
47.
AltmanD.G. (2002). Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do?Journal of the American Medical Association287, 2765–2767.
48.
AltmanD.G., & BlandJ.M. (1991). Improving doctors’ understanding of statistics (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society)154, 223–267.
