In support of EHP's proposal to adopt the ARRIVE guidelines

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 121, Issue 11-12, 2013, Pages

  Vesterinen, Hanna M ^a   Johnson, Paula I ^a   Koustas, Erica ^b   Lam, Juleen ^c   Sutton, Patrice ^a   Woodruff, Tracey J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; FUNDING; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING BIAS; LETTER; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TOBACCO; TOXICOLOGY;

ANIMALS; EDITORIAL POLICIES; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84888404564     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: 15529924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1307775     Document Type: Letter

References (15)

1. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. 2011. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):401-406.
2. Barnes DE, Bero LA. 1997. Scientific quality of original research articles on environmental tobacco smoke. Tob Control 6(1):19-26.
3. Barnes DE, Bero LA. 1998. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 279(19):1566-1570.
4. Bero L, Oostvogel F, Bacchetti P, Lee K. 2007. Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Med 4(6):e184doi:10.1371/journal. pmed.0040184.
5. Dirnagl U, Lauritzen M. 2011. Improving the quality of biomedical research: guidelines for reporting experiments involving animals [Editorial]. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 31(4):989-990.
6. Hooijmans CR, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. 2010. A gold standard publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to fully integrate the Three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more feasible. Altern Lab Anim 38(2):167-182.
7. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. 2001. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 323(7303):42-46.
8. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. 2010. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. Plos Biol 8(6):e1000412; doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412.
9. Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, Bradley EW, et al. 2012. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 490(7419):187-191.
10. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. 2003. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326(7400):1167-1170.
11. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. 2012. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:MR000033. doi:10.1002/14651858. MR000033.pub2.
12. Popelut A, Valet F, Fromentin O, Thomas A, Bouchard P. 2010. Relationship between sponsorship and failure rate of dental implants: a systematic approach. PLoS One 5(4):e10274; doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010274.
13. Shah RV, Albert TJ, Bruegel-Sanchez V, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS, Grauer JN. 2005. Industry support and correlation to study outcome for papers published in Spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(9):1099-1104.
14. Tilson HA, Schroeder JC. 2013. Reporting of results from animal studies [Editorial]. Environ Health Perspect 121:A320-A321; doi:10.1289/ehp.1307676.
15. Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, ffrench-Constant C, Williams A, Chandran S, Macleod MR. 2010. Improving the translational hit of experimental treatments in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 16(9):1044-1055.