RIPOSTE: A framework for improving the design and analysis of laboratory-based research

eLife

Volumn 4, Issue MAY, 2015, Pages 1-45

  Masca, Nicholas G D ^a   Hensor, Elizabeth M A ^b   Cornelius, Victoria R ^c   Buffa, Francesca M ^d   Marriott, Helen M ^e   Eales, James M ^a   Messenger, Michael P ^f   Anderson, Amy E ^g   Boot, Chris ^h   Bunce, Catey ^i,j   Goldin, Robert D ^k   Harris, Jessica ^l   Hinchliffe, Rod F ^m   Junaid, Hiba ⁿ   Kingston, Shaun ^o   Martin Ruiz, Carmen ^g   Nelson, Christopher P ^p   Peacock, Janet ^q   Seed, Paul T ^c   Shinkins, Bethany ^r   Staples, Karl J ^s   Toombs, Jamie ^t   Wright, Adam K A ^u   Dawn Teare, M ^v   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b Chapel Allerton Hospital   (United Kingdom)

^c KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^f LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^g NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^h NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^j LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^k IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^l UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^m SHEFFIELD CHILDREN'S NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

ⁿ ROYAL LONDON HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^o ROYAL BROMPTON AND HAREFIELD NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^p UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^q GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^r UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^s University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust   (United Kingdom)

^t UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^u UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF LEICESTER NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^v UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Experimental design; Interdisciplinary research; Reproducible research; Statistical design

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; GENE EXPRESSION; GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE; HYPOTHESIS; LABORATORY BASED RESEARCH; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MACROPHAGE; MEDICAL DEVICE; OUTCOME VARIABLE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZATION; REDUCING IRREPRODUCIBILITY IN LABORATORY STUDIES FRAMEWORK; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; STUDY DESIGN; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TRENDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84930619829     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2050084X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.05519     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. The Economist. 2013. Unreliable Research: Trouble at the lab. The Economist. (19 October 2013).
2. Begley, C.G. and L.M. Ellis, Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 2012. 483(7391): p. 531-533.
3. Begley, C.G., Six red flags for suspect work. Nature, 2013. 497(7450): p. 433-434.
4. Macleod, M.R., et al., Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet, 2014. 383(9912): p. 101-104.
5. Morrison SJ. 2014. Time to do something about reproducibility. eLife 3:e03981
6. Errington TM et al. 2014. An open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research. eLife 3:e04333.
7. McNutt, M., Reproducibility. Science, 2014. 343(6168): p. 231-231.
8. Nature. Reducing our irreproducibility. Nature, 2013. 496(7446): p. 398-398.
9. Brazma, A., Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment (MIAME) - Successes, Failures, Challenges. The Scientific World Journal, 2009. 9: p. 420-423.
10. Altman, D.G., et al., Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. BMC Medicine, 2012. 10.
11. Institute of Medicine. 2012. Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
12. Sebastiani P et al. 2011 Retraction. Science 333:404.
13. Freedman, L.P. and J. Inglese, The Increasing Urgency for Standards in Basic Biologic Research. Cancer Research, 2014. 74(15): p. 4024-4029.
14. Irizarry, R.A., et al., Multiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms (vol 2, pg 345, 2005). Nature Methods, 2005. 2(6): p. 477-477.
15. Prinz, F., T. Schlange, and K. Asadullah, Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2011. 10(9): p. 712-U81.
16. Lambert, C.G. and L.J. Black, Learning from our GWAS mistakes: from experimental design to scientific method. Biostatistics, 2012. 13(2): p. 195-203.
17. Parker, H.S. and J.T. Leek, The practical effect of batch on genomic prediction. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, 2012. 11(3).
18. Baggerly, K.A. and K.R. Coombes, Deriving Chemosensitivity from cell lines: Forensic Bioinformatics and Reproducible Research in High-Throughput Biology. Annals of Applied Statistics, 2009. 3(4): p. 1309-1334.
19. Bogardus, S.T., J. Concato, and A.R. Feinstein, Clinical epidemiological quality in molecular genetic research - The need for methodological standards. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1999. 281(20): p. 1919-1926.
20. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2005. 2(8): p. 696-701.
21. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Journals should publish all "null" results and should sparingly publish "positive" results. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 2006. 15(1): p. 186-186.
22. Easterbrook, P.J., et al., Publication Bias in Clinical Research. Lancet, 1991. 337(8746): p. 867- 872.
23. Collins, F.S. and L.A. Tabak, NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature, 2014. 505(7485): p. 612-613.
24. Moher, D., et al., The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet, 2001. 357(9263): p. 1191-1194.
25. Schulz, K.F., et al., CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010. 63(8): p. 834-840.
26. Corey, D.R., et al., Breakthrough Articles: Putting science first. Nucleic Acids Research, 2014. 42(18).
27. Stegle, O., et al., Using probabilistic estimation of expression residuals (PEER) to obtain increased power and interpretability of gene expression analyses. Nature Protocols, 2012. 7(3): p. 500-507.
28. Barnhart, H.X., A.S. Kosinski, and M.J. Haber, Assessing individual agreement. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 2007. 17(4): p. 697-719.
29. Maecker, H.T., J.P. McCoy, Jr., and F.H. Immunophenotyping, A model for harmonizing flow cytometry in clinical trials (vol 11, pg 975, 2010). Nature Immunology, 2011. 12(3): p. 271-271.
30. S, P., ed. Clinical Trials a Methodological Perspective. 2005, Wiley. 274-276.
31. Westgard, J.O., et al., A MULTI-RULE SHEWHART CHART FOR QUALITY-CONTROL IN CLINICAL-CHEMISTRY. Clinical Chemistry, 1981. 27(3): p. 493-501.
32. Hurlbert, S.H., Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs, 1984. 54(2): p. 187-211.
33. Chalmers, I. and P. Glasziou, Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet, 2009. 374(9683): p. 86-89.
34. Ioannidis, J.P.A., How to make more published research true. PLoS medicine, 2014. 11(10): p. e1001747-e1001747.
35. Ioannidis, J.P.A., et al., Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet, 2014. 383(9912): p. 166-175.
36. Glasziou, P., et al., Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet, 2014. 383(9913): p. 267-276.
37. Nosek, B.A. and D. Lakens, Registered Reports. Social Psychology, 2014. 45(3): p. 137-141.
38. Bloom, T., E. Ganley, and M. Winker, Data Access for the Open Access Literature: PLOS's Data Policy. Plos Biology, 2014. 12(2).
39. Altman, D.G., The Time Has Come to Register Diagnostic and Prognostic Research. Clinical Chemistry, 2014. 60(4): p. 580-582.
40. Hooft, L. and P.M.M. Bossuyt, Prospective Registration of Marker Evaluation Studies: Time to Act. Clinical Chemistry, 2011. 57(12): p. 1684-1686.