Can you trust your animal study data?

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 13, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 560-

  Peers, Ian S ^a   South, Marie C ^a   Ceuppens, Peter R ^a   Bright, Jonathan D ^a   Pilling, Elizabeth ^a  

^a ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL; IN VIVO STUDY; LETTER; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONHUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DISEASE MODEL; DRUG SCREENING; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY;

ANIMALS; DECISION MAKING; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84906993504     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: 14741784     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd4090-c1     Document Type: Letter

References (7)

1. Arrowsmith, J. & Miller, P. Phase II and Phase III attrition rates 2011-2012. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 569 (2013).
2. Rice, M. J. The institutional review board is an impediment to human research: the result is more animal-based research. Philos. Eth. Humanit. Med. 6, 12 (2011).
3. Home Office. Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2011. London Stationery Office (2012).
4. Landis, S. C., et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 490, 187-191 (2012).
5. Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531-533 (2012).
6. Peers, I. S., et al. In search of preclinical robustness. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 11, 733-734 (2012).
7. Prinz, F., et al. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 712 (2011