Abstract:Lack of translation and irreproducibility challenge preclinical animal research. Insufficient reporting methodologies to safeguard study quality is part of the reason. This nationwide study investigates the reporting prevalence of these methodologies and scrutinizes the reported information’s level of detail. Publications were from two time periods to convey any reporting progress and had at least one author affiliated to a Danish University. We retrieved all relevant animal experimental studies using a predefined research protocol and a systematic search. A random sampling of 250 studies from 2009 and 2018 led to 500 publications in total. Reporting of measures known to impact study results estimates were assessed. Part I discloses a simplified two-level scoring “yes/no” to identify the presence of reporting. Part II demonstrates an additional three-level scoring to analyze the reported information’s level of detail. Overall reporting prevalence is low, although minor improvements are noted. Reporting of randomization increased from 24.0% in 2009 to 40.8% in 2018, blinded experiment conduct from 2.4% to 4.4%, blinded outcome assessment from 23.6% to 38.0%, and sample size calculation from 3.2% to 14.0%. Poor reporting of details is striking with reporting of the random allocation method to groups being only 1.2% in 2009 and 6.0% in 2018. Reporting of sample size calculation method was 2.4% in 2009 and 7.6% in 2018. Only conflict-of-interest statements reporting increased from 37.6% in 2009 to 90.4%. Measures safeguarding study quality are poorly reported in publications affiliated with Danish research institutions. Only a modest improvement was noted during the period 2009–2018, and the lack of details urgently prompts institutional strategies to accelerate this. We suggest thorough teaching in designing, conducting and reporting animal studies. Education in systematic review methodology should be implemented in this training and will increase motivation and behavior working towards quality improvements in science.

Reporting Checklist for Nature Neuroscience

Reporting checklists in neuroimaging: promoting transparency, replicability, and reproducibility

Statistical guidance provided to authors by clinical neurology and neuroscience journals

An illustration of reproducibility in neuroscience research in the absence of selective reporting

Ten Points for High-Quality Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation

From zero to figure hero. A checklist for designing scientific data visualizations

Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation

Statistical Analysis Is Vital at eNeuro

Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report.

Effect size, sample size and power of forced swim test assays in mice: Guidelines for investigators to optimize reproducibility

A checklist for maximizing reproducibility of ecological niche models

Reproducibility in the Absence of Selective Reporting: an Illustration from Large-Scale Brain Asymmetry Research

New Author Guidelines for Displaying Data and Reporting Data Analysis and Statistical Methods in Experimental Biology

Understanding HCI Practices and Challenges of Experiment Reporting with Brain Signals: Towards Reproducibility and Reuse

Reproducibility of in-vivo electrophysiological measurements in mice

Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research

Reporting animal research: Explanation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2019

Ten simple rules for neuroimaging meta-analysis

Recommendations to improve use and reporting of statistics in animal experiments

SuperPlots: Communicating reproducibility and variability in cell biology

Research Data Management and Data Sharing for Reproducible Research-Results of a Community Survey of the German National Research Data Infrastructure Initiative Neuroscience