Experimental design and reporting standards for improving the internal validity of pre-clinical studies in the field of pain: Consensus of the IMI-Europain consortium

Scandinavian Journal of Pain

Volumn 7, Issue , 2015, Pages 58-70

  Knopp, K L ^a   Stenfors, C ^b,n   Baastrup, C ^c   Bannon, A W ^d   Calvo, M ^e   Caspani, O ^f   Currie, G ^g   Finnerup, N B ^c   Huang, W ^h   Kennedy, J D ^a   Lefevre, I ⁱ   Machin, I ^j   Macleod, M ^g   Rees, H ^k   Rice, A S C ^h   Rutten, K ^l   Segerdahl, M ^l   Serra, J ^m   Wodarski, R ^a,h   Berge, O G ^b,o   Treede, R D ^f   more..

^a ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^b ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

^c AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^d ABBVIE INC   (United States)

^e KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^g UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^h IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ SANOFI   (France)

^j In Vivo Pharmacology Consultant   (United Kingdom)

^k PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United Kingdom)

^l GRÜNENTHAL GMBH   (Germany)

^m Neuroscience Technologies   (Spain)

ⁿ ORION CORPORATION   (Finland)

^o UPPSALA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

more..

Author keywords

Experimental bias; Innovative Medicines Initiative; Pre clinical pain models; Reproducibility

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT;

CALCULATION; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CONSENSUS; DATA ANALYSIS; ETHICS; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FUNDING; HUMAN; INTERNAL VALIDITY; LABORATORY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN; PHYSIOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZATION; REGISTER; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE; SHAM PROCEDURE; STANDARD; STRESS; TRANSLATING (LANGUAGE); ANALGESIA; ANIMAL; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DISEASE MODEL; EUROPE; METHODOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; STANDARDS;

ANIMALS; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; EUROPE; HUMANS; PAIN; PAIN MANAGEMENT; PUBLICATION BIAS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84961376050     PISSN: 18778860     EISSN: 18778879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.sjpain.2015.01.006     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. International Association for the Study of Pain. Available at: http://www.iasp-pain.org/.
2. Jensen T.S., Baron R., Haanpää M., Kalso E., Loeser J.D., Rice A.S., Treede R-D. A new definition of neuropathic pain. Pain 2010, 152:2204-2205.
3. Maier C., Baron R., Tölle T.R., Binder A., Birbaumer N., Birklein F., Gierthmühlen J., Flor H., Geber C., Huge V., Krumova E.K., Landwehrmeyer G.B., Magerl W., Maihöfner C., Richter H., Rolke R., Scherens A., Schwarz A., Sommer C., Tronnier V., Uçeyler N., Valet M., Wasner G., Treede R.D. Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): somatosensory abnormalities in 1236 patients with different neuropathic pain syndromes. Pain 2010, 150:439-450.
4. Loeser J.D., Treede R-D. The Kyoto protocol of IASP basic pain terminology. Pain 2008, 137:473-477.
5. Whiteside G.T., Adedoyin A., Leventhal L. Predictive validity of animal pain models? A comparison of the pharmacokineticepharmacodynamic relationship for pain drugs in rats and humans. Neuropharmacology 2008, 54:767-775.
6. Berge O.-G. Predictive validity of behavioural animal models for chronic pain. Br J Pharmacol 2011, 164:1195-1206.
7. Moore A., Derry S., Eccleston C., Kalso E. Expect analgesic failure; pursue analgesic success. BMJ 2013, 346:1-6.
8. Mogil J.S., Davis K.D., Derbyshire S.W. The necessity of animal models in pain research. Pain 2010, 151:12-17.
9. Begley C.G., Ellis L.M. Raise standards for pre-clinical cancer research. Nature 2012, 483:531-533.
10. 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 2011, 10:712.
11. Macleod M. Why animal research needs to improve. Nature 2011, 477:511.
12. Kilkenny C., Parsons N., Kadyszewski E., Festing M.F., Cuthill I.C., Hutton J., Altman D.G. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS ONE 2009, 4:e7824.
13. Moher D., Simera I., Schulz K.F., Hoey J., Altman D.G. Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research. BMC Med 2008, 6:13.
14. Henderson V.C., Kimmelman J., Fergusson D., Grimshaw J.M., Hackam D.G. Threats to validity in the design and conduct of preclinical efficacy studies: a systematic review of guidelines for in vivo animal experiment. PLoS Med 2013, 10:1-14.
15. Landis S.C., Amara S.G., Asadullah K., Austin C.P., Blumenstein R., Bradley E.W., Crystal R.G., Darnell R.B., Ferrante R.J., Fillit H., Finkelstein R., Fisher M., Gendelman H.E., Golub R.M., Goudreau J.L., Gross R.A., Gubitz A.K., Hesterlee S.E., Howells D.W., Huguenrard J., Kelner K., Koroshetz W., Krinc D., Lazic S.E., Levine M.S., Macleod M.R., McCall J.M., Moxley R.T, Narasimihan K., Noble L.J., Perrin S., Porter J.D., Steward O., Unger E., UTz U., Silberberg S.D. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of pre-clinical research. Nature 2012, 490:187-191.
16. Sena E., Whelbe P., Sandercock P., Macleod M. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of tirilazad in experimental stroke. Stroke 2007, 38:388-394.
17. Gregory N.S., Harris A.L., Robinson C.R., Dougherty P.M., Fuchs P.N., Sluka K.A. An overview of animal models of pain: disease models and outcome measures. J Pain 2013, 14:1255-1269.
18. Le Bars D., Hansson P.T., Plaghki L. Current animal tests and models of pain. Pharmacology of pain 2009, 1-30. IASP Press, Seattle. P. Beaulieu, D. Lussier, F. Porreca, A.H. Dickenson (Eds.).
19. Percie du Sert N., Rice A.S. Improving the translation of analgesic drugs to the clinic: animal models of neuropathic pain. Br J Pharmacol 2014, 171:2951-2963.
20. Crossley N.A., Sena E., Goehler J., Horn J., van der Worp B., Bath P.M.W. Empirical evidence of bias in the design of experimental stroke studies: a metaepidemiologic approach. Stroke 2008, 39:929-934.
21. Steward O., Popovich P.G., Dietrich W.D., Kleitman N. Replication and reproducibility in spinal cord injury research. Exp Neurol 2012, 233:597-605.
22. Kontinen V.K., Meert T.F. Predictive validity of neuropathic pain models in pharmacological studies with a behavioral outcome in the rat: a systematic review. Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Pain (24th edition) 2003, 489-498. IASP Press, Seattle.
23. Lindner M.D., Frydel B.R., Francis J.M., Cain C.K. Analgesic effects of adrenal chromaffin allografts: contingent on special procedures or due to experimenter bias?. J Pain 2003, 4:64-73.
24. Eisenach J.C., Lindner M.D. Did experimenter bias conceal the efficacy of spinal opioids in previous studies with the spinal nerve ligation model of neuropathic pain?. Anesthesiology 2004, 100:765-767.
25. Rice A.S.C., Cimino-Brown D., Eisenach J.C., Kontinen V.K., Lacroix-Fralish M.L., Machin I., Preclinical Pain Consortium, Mogil J.S., Stöhr T. Animal models and the prediction of efficacy in clinical trials of analgesic drugs: a critical appraisal and call for uniform reporting standards. Pain 2008, 139:243-247.
26. Rice A.S.C. Predicting analgesic efficacy from animal models of peripheral neuropathy and nerve injury: a critical view from the clinic. Pain 2010 - an updated review: refresher course syllabus 2010, 415-426. IASP Press, Seattle. J.S. Mogil (Ed.).
27. Currie G.L., Delaney A., Bennett M.I., Dickenson A.H., Egan K.J., Vesterinen H.M., Sena E.S., Macleod M.R., Colvin L.A., Fallon M.T. Animal models of bone cancer pain: systematic review and meta-analyses. Pain 2013, 154:917-926.
28. Sena E.S., van der Worp H.B., Bath P.M.W., Howells D.W., Macleod M.R. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol 2010, 8:e1000344.
29. Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S., Horton R., Moher D., Olkin I., Pitkin R., Rennie D., Schulz K.F., Simel D., Stroup D.F. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996, 276:637-639.
30. Moher D., Schulz K.F., Altman D.G. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001, 357:1191-1194.
31. Moher D., Schulz K.F., Altman D.G. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001, 134:657-662.
32. Moher D., Schulz K.F., Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001, 285:1987-1991.
33. Schulz K.F., Altman D.G., Moher D., CONSORT Group CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 2010, 8:18.
34. Kilkenny C., Browne W.J., Cuthill I.C., Emerson M., Altman D.G. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2010, 8:e1000412.
35. Altman D.G. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors. BMJ 2005, 330:1056-1057.
36. Hopewell S., Altman D.G., Moher D., Schulz K.F. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'instructions to Authors'. Trials 2008, 9:20.
37. Danos O., Davies K., Lehn P., Mulligan R. The ARRIVE guidelines, a welcome improvement to standards for reporting animal research. J Gene Med 2010, 12:559-560.
38. Moher D., Jones A., Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001, 285:1992-1995.
39. Plint A.C., Moher D., Schulz K., Altman D.G., Morrison A. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials? A systematic review. Fifth International Congress of Peer Review and Biomedical Publication 2005.
40. Nature Medicine Editorial Raising standards. Nat Med 2013, 19:508.
41. Macleod M.R., Fisher M., O'Collins V., Sena E.S., Dirnagl U., Bath P.M., Buchan A., van der Worp H.B., Traystman R., Minematsu K., Donnan G.A., Howells D.W. Good laboratory practice. preventing introduction of bias at the bench. Stroke 2009, 40:e50-e52.
42. Sena E., van der Worp H.B., Howells D., Macleod M. How can we improve the pre-clinical development of drugs for stroke?. Trends Neurosci 2007, 30:433-439.
43. van der Worp H.B., Howells D.W., Sena E.S., Porritt M.J., Rewell S., O'Collins V., Macleod M.R. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies?. PLoS Med 2010, 7:e1000245.
44. Organisation for the Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/env/chemicalsafetyandbiosafety/testingofchemicals/linkstonationalwebsitesongoodlaboratorypractice.htm.
45. Mogil J.S., Bailey A.L. Sex and gender differences in pain and analgesia. Prog Brain Res 2010, 186:141-157.
46. Fillingim R.B., Gear R.W. Sex differences in opioid analgesia: clinical and experimental findings. Eur J Pain 2004, 8:413-425.
47. Butler R.K., Finn D.P. Stress-induced analgesia. Prog Neurobiol 2009, 88:184-202.
48. Hart P.C., Bergner C.L., Smolinsky A.N., Dufour B.D., Egan R.J., Laporte J.L., Kalueff A.V. Experimental models of anxiety for drug discovery and brain research. Methods Mol Biol 2010, 602:299-321.
49. Carrive P., Churyukanov M., LeBars D. A reassessment of stress-induced analgesia in the rat using an unbiased method. Pain 2011, 152:676-686.
50. Animal Welfare Information Center: Pain and distress references. Available at: http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=3%26tax_level=1%26tax_subject=310.
51. National Research Council Recognition and alleviation of pain in laboratory animals 2009, National Academies Press, Washington.
52. Miaoulis G., Michener R.D. An introduction to sampling 1976, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA.
53. EFSA Scientific Committee Statistical significance and biological relevance. EFSA J 2011, 9:2372.
54. National Centre for the Replacement Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research. Available at http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/.
55. Meller S.T., Dykstra C., Pechman P.S., Maves T.J., Gebhart G.F. Ethanol dose-dependently attenuates NMDA-mediated thermal hyperalgesia in the rat. Neurosci Lett 1993, 154:137-140.
56. Colucci M., Maione F., Bonito M.C., Piscopo A., Di Giannuario A., Pieretti S. New insights of dimethyl sulphoxide effects (DMSO) on experimental in vivo models of nociception and inflammation. Pharmacol Res 2008, 57:419-425.
57. Morton D.B., Jennings M., Buckwell A., Ewbank R., Godfrey C., Holgate B., Inglis I., James R., Page C., Sharman I., Verschoyle R., Westall L., Wilson A.B., Joint Working Group on Refinement Refining procedures for the administration of substances: report of the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement. Lab Anim 2000, 35:1-41.
58. Ellison S.L.R., Barwick V., Farrant T.J. Practical statistics for the analytical scientist: a bench guide 2009, RSC Publishing. 2nd ed.
59. Efron B. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika 1971, 58:403.
60. Olejnik S.F. Variance heterogeneity: an outcome to explain or a nuisance factor to control. J Exp Educ 1988, 56:193-197.
61. Forder P.M., Gebski V.J., Keech A.C. Allocation concealment and blinding: when ignorance is bliss. Med J Aust 2005, 182:87-89.
62. Schulz K.F., Grimes D.A. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 2002, 359:614-618.
63. Meert T.F., Vermeirsch H.A. A pre-clinical comparison between different opioids: antinociceptive versus adverse effect. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2005, 80:309-326.
64. Vonsy J.L., Ghandehari J., Dickenson A.H. Differential analgesic effects of morphine and gabapentin on behavioural measures of pain and disability in a model of osteoarthritis pain in rats. Eur J Pain 2009, 13:786-793.
65. Zimmermann M. Ethical guidelines for investigations of experimental pain in conscious animals. Pain 1983, 16:109-110.
66. Finnerup N.B., Sindrup S.H., Jensen T.S. The evidence for pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Pain 2010, 150:573-581.
67. Clinical Trials.org. Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov/.
68. Crabbe J.C., Wahlsten D., Dudek B.C. Genetics of mouse behavior: interactions with laboratory environment. Science 1999, 284:1670-1672.