The Devil Is in the Details: Incomplete Reporting in Preclinical Animal Research

Area of Science:

• Preclinical research
• Biomedical science
• Stem cell therapy

Background:

• Incomplete reporting of study methods and results is a significant barrier to the reproducibility and translation of preclinical findings.
• This issue is pervasive, extending beyond specific design elements to encompass the reporting of methods and results comprehensively.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the completeness of reporting in preclinical studies using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for acute lung injury.
• To quantify the extent of incomplete reporting across methods and results sections based on established guidelines.

Main Methods:

• A systematic review of 47 preclinical studies investigating MSCs for acute lung injury was conducted.
• The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines were operationalized into 109 reporting sub-items.
• 5,123 data elements were extracted to assess reporting completeness.

Main Results:

• Studies reported less than half (47%) of all assessed sub-items, with a median of 51 items reported.
• The Methods Section reported less than half (45%) of the sub-items, and the Results Section reported less than a third (29%).
• No association was found between journal impact factor and reporting completeness, indicating the problem is widespread across journals.

Conclusions:

• Incomplete reporting of methods and results is a broad issue in preclinical research, affecting studies regardless of journal prestige.
• This lack of comprehensive reporting significantly impedes the replication of research findings and limits the potential value derived from preclinical studies.
• Improving reporting standards is crucial for enhancing the reliability and translational success of preclinical research.