Design animal studies better (original) (raw)

Preclinical research

Nature volume 510, page 35 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Steve Perrin argues that animal models of human disease should be better characterized to avoid false-positive results (Nature 507, 423–425; 2014). Poor design, execution and reporting of studies are pervasive contributors as well.

For example, randomization and blinding in animal studies is pitifully infrequent (see, for instance, J. P. Ioannidis et al. Lancet 383, 166–175; 2014). Randomly allocating animals to experimental and control groups makes the experimental groups as similar as possible in other respects. Blinding promotes comparable handling and measurement by experimenters, and publicly preregistering animal-study protocols and the outcomes to be measured would identify and reduce bias in reporting results.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Author information

Author notes

  1. Malcolm R. Macleod: On behalf of 6 co-authors (see Supplementary Information for full list).

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Edinburgh, UK
    Malcolm R. Macleod

Authors

  1. Malcolm R. Macleod

Corresponding author

Correspondence toMalcolm R. Macleod.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Macleod, M. Design animal studies better.Nature 510, 35 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/510035a

Download citation

This article is cited by