BMJ Open Science最新文献

{"title":"Publication rate in preclinical research: a plea for preregistration.","authors":"Mira van der Naald, Steven Wenker, Pieter A Doevendans, Kimberley E Wever, Steven A J Chamuleau","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2019-100051","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjos-2019-100051","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The ultimate goal of biomedical research is the development of new treatment options for patients. Animal models are used if questions cannot be addressed otherwise. Currently, it is widely believed that a large fraction of performed studies are never published, but there are no data that directly address this question.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We have tracked a selection of animal study protocols approved in the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, to assess whether these have led to a publication with a follow-up period of 7 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that 60% of all animal study protocols led to at least one publication (full text or abstract). A total of 5590 animals were used in these studies, of which 26% was reported in the resulting publications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The data presented here underline the need for preclinical preregistration, in view of the risk of reporting and publication bias in preclinical research. We plea that all animal study protocols should be prospectively registered on an online, accessible platform to increase transparency and data sharing. To facilitate this, we have developed a platform dedicated to animal study protocol registration: www.preclinicaltrials.eu.</p>","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":" ","pages":"e100051"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647586/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39696247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In vivo studies on antibiotic combination for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.","authors":"Elda Righi,&nbsp;Luigia Scudeller,&nbsp;Margherita Chiamenti,&nbsp;Kamilia Abdelraouf,&nbsp;Thomas Lodise,&nbsp;Elena Carrara,&nbsp;Alessia Savoldi,&nbsp;Dario Menghin,&nbsp;Gloria Pellizzari,&nbsp;Sally Ellis,&nbsp;Francois Franceschi,&nbsp;Laura Piddock,&nbsp;Chiara Rebuffi,&nbsp;Maurizio Sanguinetti,&nbsp;Evelina Tacconelli","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2019-100055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2019-100055","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>There is poor evidence to determine the superiority of combination regimens versus monotherapy against infections due to carbapenem-resistant (CR) Gram-negative bacteria. In vivo models can simulate the pathophysiology of infections in humans and assess antibiotic efficacy. We aim to investigate in vivo effects of antibiotic combination on mortality and disease burden for infections due to CR <i>Acinetobacter baumannii</i>, <i>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</i> and Enterobacteriaceae and provide an unbiased overview of existing knowledge. The results of the study can help prioritising future research on the most promising therapies against CR bacteria.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>This protocol was formulated using the Systematic Review Protocol for Animal Intervention Studies (SYRCLE) Checklist. Publications will be collected from PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science. Quality checklists adapted by Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies and SYRCLE's risk of bias tool will be used. If the meta-analysis seems feasible, the ES and the 95% CI will be analysed. The heterogeneity between studies will be assessed by I² test. Subgroup meta-analysis will be performed when possible to assess the impact of the studies on efficacy of the treatments. Funnel plotting will be used to evaluate the risk of publication bias.</p><p><strong>Dissemination: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis is part of a wider research collaboration project, the COmbination tHErapy to treat sepsis due to carbapenem-Resistant bacteria in adult and paediatric population: EvideNCE and common practice (COHERENCE) study that includes also the analyses of in vitro and human studies. Data will be presented at international conferences and the results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42019128104(available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019128104).</p>","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":" ","pages":"e100055"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjos-2019-100055","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39696248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research.","authors":"Nathalie Percie du Sert, Viki Hurst, Amrita Ahluwalia, Sabina Alam, Marc T Avey, Monya Baker, William J Browne, Alejandra Clark, Innes C Cuthill, Ulrich Dirnagl, Michael Emerson, Paul Garner, Stephen T Holgate, David W Howells, Natasha A Karp, Stanley E Lazic, Katie Lidster, Catriona J MacCallum, Malcolm Macleod, Esther J Pearl, Ole H Petersen, Frances Rawle, Penny Reynolds, Kieron Rooney, Emily S Sena, Shai D Silberberg, Thomas Steckler, Hanno Würbel","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2020-100115","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjos-2020-100115","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into two sets, the 'ARRIVE Essential 10', which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the 'Recommended Set', which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":"4 1","pages":"e100115"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7610906/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10611472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Systematic review of guidelines for internal validity in the design, conduct and analysis of preclinical biomedical experiments involving laboratory animals.","authors":"Jan Vollert, Esther Schenker, Malcolm Macleod, Anton Bespalov, Hanno Wuerbel, Martin Michel, Ulrich Dirnagl, Heidrun Potschka, Ann-Marie Waldron, Kimberley Wever, Thomas Steckler, Tom van de Casteele, Bruce Altevogt, Annesha Sil, Andrew S C Rice","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2019-100046","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjos-2019-100046","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Over the last two decades, awareness of the negative repercussions of flaws in the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical research involving experimental animals has been growing. Several initiatives have set out to increase transparency and internal validity of preclinical studies, mostly publishing expert consensus and experience. While many of the points raised in these various guidelines are identical or similar, they differ in detail and rigour. Most of them focus on reporting, only few of them cover the planning and conduct of studies. The aim of this systematic review is to identify existing experimental design, conduct, analysis and reporting guidelines relating to preclinical animal research. A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science retrieved 13 863 unique results. After screening these on title and abstract, 613 papers entered the full-text assessment stage, from which 60 papers were retained. From these, we extracted unique 58 recommendations on the planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical animal studies. Sample size calculations, adequate statistical methods, concealed and randomised allocation of animals to treatment, blinded outcome assessment and recording of animal flow through the experiment were recommended in more than half of the publications. While we consider these recommendations to be valuable, there is a striking lack of experimental evidence on their importance and relative effect on experiments and effect sizes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":" ","pages":"e100046"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647591/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39835817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comorbidity and age in the modelling of stroke: are we still failing to consider the characteristics of stroke patients?","authors":"Sarah K McCann, Catherine B Lawrence","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2019-100013","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjos-2019-100013","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stroke is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity for which there are limited treatment options. Virtually all drug interventions that have been successful preclinically in experimental stroke have failed to translate to an effective treatment in the clinical setting. In this review, we examine one of the factors likely contributing to this lack of translation, the failure of preclinical studies to consider fully the advanced age and comorbidities (eg, hypertension or diabetes) present in most patients with stroke. Age and comorbidities affect the likelihood of suffering a stroke, disease progression and the response to treatment. Analysing data from preclinical systematic reviews of interventions for ischaemic stroke we show that only 11.4% of studies included an aged or comorbid model, with hypertension being the most frequent. The degree of protection (% reduction in infarct volume) varied depending on the comorbidity and the type of intervention. We consider reasons for the lack of attention to comorbid and aged animals in stroke research and discuss the value of testing a potential therapy in models representing a range of comorbidities that affect patients with stroke. These models can help establish any limits to a treatment's efficacy and inform the design of clinical trials in appropriate patient populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":" ","pages":"e100013"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8749262/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39835812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Therapeutic potential of extracellular vesicles in preclinical stroke models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Josephine M Thomas,&nbsp;Catriona J Cunningham,&nbsp;Catherine B Lawrence,&nbsp;Emmanuel Pinteaux,&nbsp;Stuart M Allan","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2019-100047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2019-100047","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Currently there is a paucity of clinically available regenerative therapies for stroke. Extracellular vesicles (EV) have been investigated for their potential as modulators of regeneration in the poststroke brain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide a summary of the efficacy of therapeutic EVs in preclinical stroke models, to inform future research in this emerging field.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies were identified by a comprehensive literature search of two online sources and subsequent screening. Studies using lesion volume or neurological score as outcome measures were included. Standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs were calculated using a restricted maximum likelihood random effects model. Publication bias was assessed with Egger's regression and presented as funnel plots with trim and fill analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess the effects of different study variables. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the CAMARADES checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 20 publications were included in the systematic review, of which 19 were assessed in the meta-analysis (43 comparisons). Overall, EV interventions improved lesion volume (SMD: -1.95, 95% CI -2.72 to 1.18) and neurological scores (SMD: -1.26, 95% CI -1.64 to 0.87) compared with control groups. Funnel plots were asymmetrical suggesting publication bias, and trim and fill analysis predicted seven missing studies for lesion volume. Subgroup analysis suggested administration at 0-23 hours after stroke was the most effective timepoint for EV treatment. The median score on the CAMARADES checklist was 7 (IQR: 5-8).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EVs may offer a promising new avenue for stroke therapies, as EV-based interventions had positive impacts on lesion volume and neurological score in preclinical stroke models.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42019134925.</p>","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":" ","pages":"e100047"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjos-2019-100047","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39835816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Are researchers moving away from animal models as a result of poor clinical translation in the field of stroke? An analysis of opinion papers.","authors":"Pandora Pound,&nbsp;Rebecca Ram","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2019-100041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2019-100041","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Despite decades of research using animals to develop pharmaceutical treatments for patients who have had a stroke, few therapeutic options exist. The vast majority of interventions successful in preclinical animal studies have turned out to have no efficacy in humans or to be harmful to humans. In view of this, we explore whether there is evidence of a move away from animal models in this field.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used an innovative methodology, the analysis of opinion papers. Although we took a systematic approach to literature searching and data extraction, this is not a systematic review because the study involves the synthesis of opinions, not research evidence. Data were extracted from retrieved papers in chronological order and analysed qualitatively and descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty eligible papers, published between 1979 and 2018, were identified. Most authors were from academic departments of neurology, neuroscience or stroke research. Authors agreed that translational stroke research was in crisis. They held diverse views about the causes of this crisis, most of which did not fundamentally challenge the use of animal models. Some, however, attributed the translational crisis to animal-human species differences and one to a lack of human in vitro models. Most of the proposed solutions involved fine-tuning animal models, but authors disagreed about whether such modifications would improve translation. A minority suggested using human in vitro methods alongside animal models. One proposed focusing only on human in vitro methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite recognising that animal models have been unsuccessful in the field of stroke, most researchers exhibited a strong resistance to relinquishing them. Nevertheless, there is an emerging challenge to the use of animal models, in the form of human-focused in vitro approaches. For the sake of stroke patients there is an urgent need to revitalise translational stroke research and explore the evidence for these new approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":" ","pages":"e100041"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjos-2019-100041","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39835815","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effects of dietary fat manipulation on cognition in mice and rats: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Fiona J Ramage,&nbsp;Alexander S Clewlow,&nbsp;Lynda M Williams,&nbsp;Malcolm R Macleod,&nbsp;Rosamund F Langston","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2020-100108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2020-100108","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and objective: </strong>The Western diet that comprises high levels of long-chain saturated fats and sugar is associated not only with metabolic disorders such as obesity and type 2 diabetes but also has been recently linked to brain changes and cognitive dysfunction. However, in animal studies, reported effects are variable, and the mechanisms underlying these effects are unclear. In the proposed review, we aim to summarise the diverse evidence of the effects of so-called 'high-fat' and ketogenic diets on behavioural measures of cognition in postweaning mice and rats, relative to animals on standard diets and to determine potential underlying mechanisms of high-fat diet-induced effects.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>A comprehensive search strategy was designed to retrieve studies reporting use of a high-fat or ketogenic diet in postweaning mice and rats that included cognitive assessments. Three databases (Medline, SCOPUS and Web of Science) were searched and 4487 unique references were retrieved.</p><p><strong>Screening and annotation: </strong>Studies were screened for inclusion by two independent reviewers, with 330 studies retained for analysis. Characteristics of disease model choice, experimental design, intervention use and outcome assessment are to be extracted using the Systematic Review Facility (http://syrf.org.uk/) tool. Studies will be assessed for study quality and risk of bias and confidence of mechanistic involvement.</p><p><strong>Data management and reporting: </strong>For cognitive outcomes, effect sizes will be calculated using normalised mean difference and summarised using a random effects model. The contribution of potential sources of heterogeneity to the observed effects of diet on cognition will be assessed using multivariable meta-regression, with partitioning of heterogeneity as a sensitivity analysis. A preliminary version of this protocol was published on 9 April 2019 on the Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies website (http://www.dcn.ed.ac.uk/camarades/research.html%23protocols).</p><p><strong>Ethics and dissemination: </strong>No ethical approval is required as there are no subjects in the proposed study.</p>","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":"4 1","pages":"e100108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjos-2020-100108","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10721646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Methodological standards, quality of reporting and regulatory compliance in animal research on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review.","authors":"Joana G Fernandes,&nbsp;Nuno H Franco,&nbsp;Andrew J Grierson,&nbsp;Jan Hultgren,&nbsp;Andrew J W Furley,&nbsp;I Anna S Olsson","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2018-000016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2018-000016","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p></p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) research community was one of the first to adopt methodology guidelines to improve preclinical research reproducibility. We here present the results of a systematic review to investigate how the standards in this field changed over the 10-year period during which the guidelines were first published (2007) and updated (2010).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for papers reporting ALS research on SOD1 (superoxide dismutase 1) mice published between 2005 and 2015 on the ISI Web of Science database, resulting in a sample of 569 papers to review, after triage. Two scores-one for methodological quality, one for regulatory compliance-were built from weighted sums of separate sets of items, and subjected to multivariable regression analysis, to assess how these related to publication year, type of study, country of origin and journal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Reporting standards improved over time. Of papers published after the first ALS guidelines were made public, fewer than 9% referred specifically to these. Of key research parameters, only three (genetic background, number of transgenes and group size) were reported in >50% of the papers. Information on housing conditions, randomisation and blinding was absent in over two-thirds of the papers. Group size was among the best reported parameters, but the majority reported using fewer than the recommended sample size and only two studies clearly justified group size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>General methodological standards improved gradually over a period of 8-10 years, but remained generally comparable with related fields with no specific guidelines, except with regard to severity. Only 11% of ALS studies were classified in the highest severity level (animals allowed to reach death or moribund stages), substantially below the proportion in studies of comparable neurodegenerative diseases such as Huntington's. The existence of field-specific guidelines, although a welcome indication of concern, seems insufficient to ensure adherence to high methodological standards. Other mechanisms may be required to improve methodological and welfare standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":"3 1","pages":"e000016"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8715942/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39833893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"3Rs missing: animal research without scientific value is unethical.","authors":"Daniel Strech,&nbsp;Ulrich Dirnagl","doi":"10.1136/bmjos-2018-000048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2018-000048","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The current, widely established 3R framework for the ethical use of animals in research consists of three guiding principles, that is, <i>R</i>eplacement, <i>R</i>eduction and <i>R</i>efinement, all aiming to safeguard the overarching ethical principle of animal welfare. However, animal welfare alone does not suffice to make animal research ethical if the research does not have sufficient scientific value. The scientific value of animal studies strongly decreases if they are not sufficiently robust, if their questions have already been sufficiently addressed or if the results are selectively reported. Against this background, we argue that three guiding principles are missing, that is, <i>R</i>obustness, <i>R</i>egistration and <i>R</i>eporting, all of which aim to safeguard and increase the scientific value of animal research. To establish a new 6R framework, we need a multistakeholder discourse to conceptualise the specific requirements of robustness, registration and reporting and to clarify responsibilities, competencies and legislation for auditing 6R compliance.</p>","PeriodicalId":9212,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Science","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjos-2018-000048","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39833891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}