Reproducibility of research and preclinical validation: Problems and solutions

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

Volumn 10, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 720-724

  Pusztai, Lajos ^a   Hatzis, Christos ^a   Andre, Fabrice ^b  

^a YALE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

RNA;

CANCER RESEARCH; CAREER; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DATA ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC ASPECT; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; EXPERIMENTAL MODEL; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FUNDING; GENE EXPRESSION; GRANT SUBMISSION; HIGH THROUGHPUT SEQUENCING; HYPOTHESIS; IN VITRO STUDY; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL PARAMETERS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MUTATIONAL ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEOMICS; PUBLICATION; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; STANDARD; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; THEORY VALIDATION; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; UNRECOGNIZED VARIABLE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; VALIDATION STUDIES AS TOPIC;

EID: 84889576309     PISSN: 17594774     EISSN: 17594782     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.171     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Swift, R. The relationship between health and GDP in OECD countries in the very long run. Health Econ. 20, 306-322 (2011).
2. Munos, B. Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 959-968 (2009).
3. Hutchinson, L. & Kirk, R. High drug attrition rates - where are we going wrong? Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 8, 189-190 (2011).
4. Arrowsmith, J. Trial watch: Phase II failures: 2008-2010. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 328-329 (2011).
5. Arrowsmith, J. Trial watch: Phase III and submission failures: 2007-2010. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 87 (2011).
6. Daher, I. N. & Yusuf, S. W. Quantity and quality in medical research. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 56, 527-528 (2010).
7. Prinz, F., Schlange, T. & Asadullah, K. Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 10, 712 (2011).
8. Ioannidis, J. P. et al. Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses. Nat. Genet. 41, 149-155 (2009).
9. Lehrer, J. The truth wears off: Is there something wrong with the scientific method? [online], http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/ 101213fa-fact-lehrer (2010).
10. Sarewitz, D. Beware the creeping cracks of bias. Nature 485, 149 (2012).
11. Ransohoff, D. F. Bias as a threat to the validity of cancer molecular-marker research. Nat. Rev. Cancer 5, 142-149 (2005).
12. Ioannidis, J. P. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2, e124 (2005).
13. Goodman, S. & Greenland, S. Assessing the unreliability of the medical literature: A response to "Why most published research findings are false". John Hopkins University, Department of Biostatistics Working Papers [online], http://www.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper135 (2007).
14. Ranstam, J. et al. Fraud in medical research: An international survey of biostatisticians. ISCB Subcommittee on Fraud. Control. Clin. Trials 21, 415-427 (2000).
15. Buyse, M. et al. The role of biostatistics in the prevention, detection and treatment of fraud in clinical trials. Stat. Med. 18, 3435-3451 (1999).
16. Landis, S. C. et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 490, 187-191 (2012).
17. Bagley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531-533 (2012).
18. [No authors listed] Announcement: Reducing our irreproducibility. Nature 496, 398 (2013).
19. Moses, H. 3rd, Dorsey, E. R., Matheson, D. H. & Their, S. O. The financial anatomy of biomedical research. JAMA 294, 1333-1342 (2005).
20. Fanelli, D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-Analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 4, e5738 (2009).
21. Nickerson, R. S. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2, 175-220 (1998).
22. ERA-NET on Translational Cancer Research (TRANSCAN). First Joint Transnational Call for Proposals (JTC 2011) [online], http://www.transcanfp7.eu/ transcan/mod/resource/view.php?id=66 (2011).
23. National Institutes of Health. Validation of molecular diagnostics to predict patient outcomes using specimens from multi-site cancer trials [online], http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-12-013.html (2013).
24. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G., Ntzani, E. & Ioannidis, J. P. Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. Am. J. Med. 114, 477-484 (2003).
25. DiMasi, J. A., Hansen, R. W. & Grabowski, H. G. The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 22, 151-185 (2003).
26. Adams, C. P. & Brantner, V. V. Estimating the cost of new drug development: Is it really 802 million dollars? Health Aff. (Millwood) 25, 420-428 (2006).
27. Science Exchange. Reproducibility initiative [online], https://www.scienceexchange.com/reproducibility (2013).
28. Darwin, C. in More letters of Charles Darwin Vol. 2 (eds Darwin, F. & Seward, A. C.) 229 (BiblioBazaar, Charleston, SC, 2008).
29. Andre, F. et al. Biomarker studies: A call for a comprehensive biomarker study registry. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 8, 171-176 (2011).
30. National Institutes of Health. ClinincalTrials.gov [online], www.clinicaltrials.gov (2013).
31. Prayle, A. P., Hurley, M. N. & Smyth, A. R. Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: Cross sectional study. BMJ 344, d7373 (2012).
32. Freedman, D. H. Lies, damned lies, and medical science [online], http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies damned lies and medical-science/8269 (2010).