Reporting of measures against bias in nonclinical published research studies: a journal-based comparison.

Abstract

Background: Historically, systematic review studies of nonclinical published research articles around the life sciences have shown that the overall reporting of information on measures against bias is low. Measures such as randomization, blinding and sample size estimation are mentioned in the minority of the studies. The present study aims to provide an overview of the recent reporting standards in a large sample of nonclinical articles with focus on statistical information.

Methods: Journals were randomly selected from Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate). Biomedical research articles published in 2020 from 10 journals were analyzed for their reporting standards using a checklist.

Results: In total 860 articles; 320 articles describing in vivo methods, 187 articles describing in vitro methods and 353 articles including both in vivo and in vitro methods, were included in the study. The reporting rate of "randomization" ranged from 0%-63% between journals for in vivo articles and 0%-4% for in vitro articles. The reporting rate of "blinded conduct of the experiments" ranged from 11%-71% between journals for in vivo articles and 0%-86% for in vitro articles.

Conclusion: The analysis showed that the reporting standards remained low, also when other statistical information is concerned. Additionally, our results suggest that the reporting in articles on in vivo experiments is better compared to articles on in vitro experiments. Furthermore, important differences in reporting standards between journals seem to exist.