REPRINT: Good laboratory practice: Preventing introduction of bias at the bench

International Journal of Stroke

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 3-5

  Macleod, Malcolm R ^a   Fisher, Marc ^b   O'collins, Victoria ^c   Sena, Emily S ^a,c   Dirnagl, Ulrich ^d   Bath, Philip M W ^e   Buchan, Alistair ^f   Van Der Worp, H Bart ^g   Traystman, Richard J ^h   Minematsu, Kazuo ⁱ   Donnan, Geoffrey A ^c   Howells, David W ^c,j  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^d Center for Stroke Research Berlin   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^f JOHN RADCLIFFE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^h UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

ⁱ NATIONAL CEREBRAL AND CARDIOVASCULAR CENTER   (Japan)

^j FLOREY INSTITUTE OF NEUROSCIENCE AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Australia)

more..

Author keywords

Animal experiments; Animal models; Cerebral ischemia; Good practice; Neuroprotective efficacy; Reporting

Indexed keywords

DISUFENTON SODIUM;

ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DISEASE MODEL; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG EFFICACY; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL; FUNDING; GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NEUROPROTECTION; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZATION; SAMPLE SIZE; STANDARDIZATION; SYSTEMATIC ERROR;

ANIMALS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; NEUROPROTECTIVE AGENTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; STROKE;

EID: 60549110887     PISSN: 17474930     EISSN: 17474949     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2009.00241.x     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. STAIR: Recommendations for standards regarding preclinical neuroprotective and restorative drug development. Stroke 1999; 30: 2752-8.
2. Grotta J: Why do all drugs work in animals but none in stroke patients? 2. Neuroprotective therapy. J Intern Med 1995; 237: 89-94.
3. Crossley NA, Sena E, Goehler J et al. Empirical evidence of bias in the design of experimental stroke studies: A metaepidemiologic approach. Stroke 2008; 39: 929-34.
4. O'Collins VE, Macleod MR, Donnan GA, Horky LL, van der Worp BH, Howells DW: 1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke. Ann Neurol 2006; 59: 467-77.
5. Sena E, van der Worp HB, Howells D, Macleod M: How can we improve the pre-clinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends Neurosci 2007; 30: 433-9.
6. Macleod MR, O'Collins T, Horky LL, Howells DW, Donnan GA: Systematic review and metaanalysis of the efficacy of fk506 in experimental stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2005; 25: 713-21.
7. van der Worp HB, Sena ES, Donnan GA, Howells DW, Macleod MR: Hypothermia in animal models of acute ischaemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain 2007; 130: 3063-74.
8. Macleod MR, van der Worp HB, Sena ES, Howells DW, Dirnagl U, Donnan GA: Evidence for the efficacy of nxy-059 in experimental focal cerebral ischaemia is confounded by study quality. Stroke 2008; 39: 2824-9.
9. Weaver CS, Leonardi-Bee J, Bath-Hextall FJ, Bath PM: Sample size calculations in acute stroke trials: A systematic review of their reporting, characteristics, and relationship with outcome. Stroke 2004; 35: 1216-24.
10. Bath FJ, Owen VE, Bath PM: Quality of full and final publications reporting acute stroke trials: A systematic review. Stroke 1998; 29: 2203-10.
11. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D et al. The revised consort statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 663-94.
12. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The consort statement. JAMA 1996; 276: 637-9.
13. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A et al. Does the consort checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006; 185: 263-7.
14. Dirnagl U: BTnch to bedside: the quest for quality in experimental stroke research. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2006; 26: 1465-78.