Evaluating Study Design Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Research: A Replication Study
Jimenez, I. C.; Montenegro, G. C.; Zahiri, K.; Patel, D.; Mueller, A.
Show abstract
BackgroundMethodological rigor remains a priority in preclinical cardiovascular research to ensure experimental reproducibility and high-quality research. Limited reproducibility diminishes the translation of preclinical discoveries into medical practice. In addition, lack of reproducibility fosters uncertainty in the publics acceptance of reported research results. MethodsWe evaluated the reporting of methodological practices in preclinical cardiovascular research studies published in leading scientific journals by screening articles for the inclusion of the following study design elements (SDEs): considering sex as a biological variable, randomization, blinding, and sample size power estimation. We screened for these SDEs across articles regarding preclinical cardiovascular research studies published between 2011 and 2021. We replicated and extended a study published in 2017 by Ramirez et al. We hypothesized a higher SDE inclusion across preclinical studies over time, that preclinical studies that include human and animal substudies within the same study will exhibit greater SDE inclusion than animal-only preclinical studies, and that a difference exists in SDE usage between large and small animal models. ResultsSDE inclusion was low; with 15.2% of animal-only studies including both sexes as a biological variable, 30.4% including randomization, 32.1% including blinding, and 8.2% including sample size estimation. The incorporation of SDEs did not significantly increase over the ten-year timeframe in the screened articles. Randomization and sample size estimation differed significantly between animal and human substudies (corrected p=1.85e-05 and corrected p=3.81e-07, respectively.) ConclusionsEvidence of methodological rigor varies depending on the study type and model organisms used. From 2011-2021, SDE reporting within preclinical studies has not increased, suggesting more work is needed to foster the inclusion of rigorous study design elements in cardiovascular research.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection triggers for acute myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review protocol 92%
- The protective association between statins use and adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis 92%
- Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 94%
- The devil is in the details: Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopedic clinical trials 93%
- Face-to-face interventions to encourage enrolment in cardiac rehabilitation; a scoping review protocol 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Standardized Data Elements for Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Consensus Report from the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative 90%
- Prevalence of Coronary Atherosclerosis in Master Female Endurance Athletes 90%
- Effects of catheter-based renal denervation in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.