All preclinical trials should be registered in advance in an online registry

Animal models and animal-free innovations for cardiovascular research: current status and routes to be explored. Consensus document of the ESC Working Group on Myocardial Function and the ESC Working Group on Cellular Biology of the Heart

Cardiovascular diseases represent a major cause of morbidity and mortality, necessitating research to improve diagnostics, and to discover and test novel preventive and curative therapies, all of which warrant experimental models that recapitulate human disease. The translation of basic science results to clinical practice is a challenging task, in particular for complex conditions such as cardiovascular diseases, which often result from multiple risk factors and comorbidities. This difficulty might lead some individuals to question the value of animal research, citing the translational 'valley of death', which largely reflects the fact that studies in rodents are difficult to translate to humans. This is also influenced by the fact that new, human-derived in vitro models can recapitulate aspects of disease processes. However, it would be a mistake to think that animal models do not represent a vital step in the translational pathway as they do provide important pathophysiological insights into disease mechanisms particularly on an organ and systemic level. While stem cell-derived human models have the potential to become key in testing toxicity and effectiveness of new drugs, we need to be realistic, and carefully validate all new human-like disease models. In this position paper, we highlight recent advances in trying to reduce the number of animals for cardiovascular research ranging from stem cell-derived models to in situ modelling of heart properties, bioinformatic models based on large datasets, and state-of-the-art animal models, which show clinically relevant characteristics observed in patients with a cardiovascular disease. We aim to provide a guide to help researchers in their experimental design to translate bench findings to clinical routine taking the replacement, reduction, and refinement (3R) as a guiding concept.

A guide to open science practices for animal research

Translational biomedical research relies on animal experiments and provides the underlying proof of practice for clinical trials, which places an increased duty of care on translational researchers to derive the maximum possible output from every experiment performed. The implementation of open science practices has the potential to initiate a change in research culture that could improve the transparency and quality of translational research in general, as well as increasing the audience and scientific reach of published research. However, open science has become a buzzword in the scientific community that can often miss mark when it comes to practical implementation. In this Essay, we provide a guide to open science practices that can be applied throughout the research process, from study design, through data collection and analysis, to publication and dissemination, to help scientists improve the transparency and quality of their work. As open science practices continue to evolve, we also provide an online toolbox of resources that we will update continually.

Open science has become a buzzword in the scientific community that too often misses the practical application for individual researchers. This Essay, provides a guide to choosing the most appropriate tools to make animal research more transparent.

Preregistration of animal research protocols: development and 3-year overview of preclinicaltrials.eu

Open, prospective registration of a study protocol can improve research rigour in a number of ways. Through preregistration, key features of the study’s methodology are recorded and maintained as a permanent record, enabling comparison of the completed study with what was planned. By recording the study hypothesis and planned outcomes a priori, preregistration creates transparency and can reduce the risk of several common biases, such as hypothesising after results are known and outcome switching or selective outcome reporting. Second, preregistration raises awareness of measures to reduce bias, such as randomisation and blinding. Third, preregistration provides a comprehensive listing of planned studies, which can prevent unnecessary duplication and reduce publication bias. Although commonly acknowledged and applied in clinical research since 2000, preregistration of animal studies is not yet the norm. In 2018 we launched the first dedicated, open, online register for animal study protocols: wwwpreclinicaltrialseu. Here, we provide insight in the development of preclinicaltrials.eu (PCT) and evaluate its use during the first 3 years after its launch. Furthermore, we elaborate on ongoing developments such as the rise of comparable registries, increasing support for preregistration in the Netherlands—which led to the funding of PCT by the Dutch government—and pilots of mandatory preregistration by several funding bodies. We show the international coverage of currently registered protocols but with the overall low number of (pre)registered protocols.

Animal Research that Respects Animal Rights: Extending Requirements for Research with Humans to Animals

The purpose of this article is to show that animal rights are not necessarily at odds with the use of animals for research. If animals hold basic moral rights similar to those of humans, then we should consequently extend the ethical requirements guiding research with humans to research with animals. The article spells out how this can be done in practice by applying the seven requirements for ethical research with humans proposed by Ezekiel Emanuel, David Wendler, and Christine Grady to animal research. These requirements are (1) social value, (2) scientific validity, (3) independent review, (4) fair subject selection, (5) favorable risk-benefit ratio, (6) informed consent, and (7) respect for research subjects. In practice, this means that we must reform the practice of animal research to make it more similar to research with humans, rather than completely abolish the former. Indeed, if we ban animal research altogether, then we would also deprive animals of its potential benefits-which would be ethically problematic.

The use of local therapy in preventing urethral strictures: A systematic review

Background

Urethral stricture disease is a common problem amongst men in Western countries often leading to a decreased quality of life. Current endoscopic treatment procedure shows an unsatisfying stricture recurrence rate which could be improved by addition of local therapies.

Objectives

To provide an overview of both preclinical and clinical studies in order to investigate current level of evidence on the addition of local therapy to improve urethral stricture recurrence rates after endoscopic procedures.

Methods

We performed a literature search in December 2020 and August 2021 using Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science and identified articles through combinations of search terms for ‘urethral stricture disease’, ‘stricture formation’ and ‘local interventions’. We used the SYRCLE, RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools to assess risk of bias across included studies. We did not perform a meta-analysis due to methodological differences between studies.

Results

We included 32 articles in the qualitative analysis, 20 of which were preclinical studies and 12 clinical studies. Regarding preclinical articles using an animal model, nearly all interventions showed to have a positive effect on either urethral fibrosis, urethral stricture formation and/or fibrotic protein expression levels. Here, immunosuppressants and chemotherapeutics seemed most promising for possible clinical purposes. Regarding clinical studies, mitomycin-C and hyaluronic acid and carboxymethylcellulose showed positive effects on urethral stricture recurrence rates with low to intermediate risk of bias across studies. However, the positive clinical effects of mitomycin-C and steroids seemed to decrease in studies with a longer follow-up time.

Conclusion

Although local adjuvant use of mitomycin-C or hyaluronic acid and carboxymethylcellulose may carry clinical potential to improve urethral structure recurrence rates after endoscopic procedures, we believe that a large, well-designed RCT with a yearlong follow-up time is necessary to identify the true clinical value.

Therapeutic Applications of Stem Cells and Extracellular Vesicles in Emergency Care: Futuristic Perspectives

Regenerative medicine (RM) is an interdisciplinary field that aims to repair, replace or regenerate damaged or missing tissue or organs to function as close as possible to its physiological architecture and functions. Stem cells, which are undifferentiated cells retaining self-renewal potential, excessive proliferation and differentiation capacity into offspring or daughter cells that form different lineage cells of an organism, are considered as an important part of the RM approaches. They have been widely investigated in preclinical and clinical studies for therapeutic purposes. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are the vital mediators that regulate the therapeutic effects of stem cells. Besides, they carry various types of cargo between cells which make them a significant contributor of intercellular communication. Given their role in physiological and pathological conditions in living cells, EVs are considered as a new therapeutic alternative solution for a variety of diseases in which there is a high unmet clinical need. This review aims to summarize and identify therapeutic potential of stem cells and EVs in diseases requiring acute emergency care such as trauma, heart diseases, stroke, acute respiratory distress syndrome and burn injury. Diseases that affect militaries or societies including acute radiation syndrome, sepsis and viral pandemics such as novel coronavirus disease 2019 are also discussed. Additionally, featuring and problematic issues that hamper clinical translation of stem cells and EVs are debated in a comparative manner with a futuristic perspective. Graphical Abstract.

Publication rate in preclinical research: a plea for preregistration

OBJECTIVES

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Do oncology researchers adhere to reproducible and transparent principles? A cross-sectional survey of published oncology literature

OBJECTIVES

As much as 50%-90% of research is estimated to be irreproducible, costing upwards of $28 billion in USA alone. Reproducible research practices are essential to improving the reproducibility and transparency of biomedical research, such as including preregistering studies, publishing a protocol, making research data and metadata publicly available, and publishing in open access journals. Here we report an investigation of key reproducible or transparent research practices in the published oncology literature.

DESIGN

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 300 oncology publications published from 2014 to 2018. We extracted key reproducibility and transparency characteristics in a duplicative fashion by blinded investigators using a pilot tested Google Form.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome of this investigation is the frequency of key reproducible or transparent research practices followed in published biomedical and clinical oncology literature.

RESULTS

Of the 300 publications randomly sampled, 296 were analysed for reproducibility characteristics. Of these 296 publications, 194 contained empirical data that could be analysed for reproducible and transparent research practices. Raw data were available for nine studies (4.6%). Five publications (2.6%) provided a protocol. Despite our sample including 15 clinical trials and 7 systematic reviews/meta-analyses, only 7 included a preregistration statement. Less than 25% (65/194) of publications provided an author conflict of interest statement.

CONCLUSION

We found that key reproducibility and transparency characteristics were absent from a random sample of published oncology publications. We recommend required preregistration for all eligible trials and systematic reviews, published protocols for all manuscripts, and deposition of raw data and metadata in public repositories.

A systematic summary and comparison of animal models for chemotherapy induced (peripheral) neuropathy (CIPN)

Despite the large amount of human and experimental studies no effective (prophylactic) treatment exists for chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), a disabling side effect of many cancer treatments. One of the underlying reasons for this could be that often the preclinical animal models used are not the best representation of the clinical situation. We therefore present a systematic summary and comparison of all animal models currently described in literature for CIPN focusing on stimulus evoked pain-like behaviour and neurophysiological alterations in nerve function (650 included papers, and a comparison of 183 models), that resulted in a clear overview of the most effective and robust CIPN models using an administration route used in clinical practice. Using our three-step approach (step 1: efficacy; step; 2 robustness and step 3: mimicking the clinical situation) we show that all mice CIPN models treated with either paclitaxel or cisplatin using an administration route used in clinical practice seem suitable models. Three specific models using paclitaxel or cisplatin that stand out are 1) C57BL/6 female mice receiving paclitaxel and 2) CD1 male mice receiving paclitaxel and 3) C57BL/6 male mice receiving cisplatin. This overview may help scientists selecting suitable CIPN models for their research. We hypothesize that by using effective and robust animal models that mimic the clinical situation as much as possible, the translational value of preclinical study results with respect to the potential of identifying promising treatments for CIPN in the future, will prove. The methodology described in this paper, aimed at comparing animal models, is novel and can be used by scientist in other research fields as well.

Methodological standards, quality of reporting and regulatory compliance in animal research on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review

Objectives

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).

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

A standardised framework to identify optimal animal models for efficacy assessment in drug development

INTRODUCTION

Poor translation of efficacy data derived from animal models can lead to clinical trials unlikely to benefit patients-or even put them at risk-and is a potential contributor to costly and unnecessary attrition in drug development.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a tool to assess, validate and compare the clinical translatability of animal models used for the preliminary assessment of efficacy.

DESIGN AND RESULTS

We performed a scoping review to identify the key aspects used to validate animal models. Eight domains (Epidemiology, Symptomatology and Natural History-SNH, Genetic, Biochemistry, Aetiology, Histology, Pharmacology and Endpoints) were identified. We drafted questions to evaluate the different facets of human disease simulation. We designed the Framework to Identify Models of Disease (FIMD) to include standardised instructions, a weighting and scoring system to compare models as well as factors to help interpret model similarity and evidence uncertainty. We also added a reporting quality and risk of bias assessment of drug intervention studies in the Pharmacological Validation domain. A web-based survey was conducted with experts from different stakeholders to gather input on the framework. We conducted a pilot study of the validation in two models for Type 2 Diabetes (T2D)-the ZDF rat and db/db mouse. Finally, we present a full validation and comparison of two animal models for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD): the mdx mouse and GRMD dog. We show that there are significant differences between the mdx mouse and the GRMD dog, the latter mimicking the human epidemiological, SNH, and histological aspects to a greater extent than the mouse despite the overall lack of published data.

CONCLUSIONS

FIMD facilitates drug development by serving as the basis to select the most relevant model that can provide meaningful data and is more likely to generate translatable results to progress drug candidates to the clinic.

Are cell-based therapies for kidney disease safe? A systematic review of preclinical evidence

The number of individuals affected by acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is constantly rising. In light of the limited availability of treatment options and their relative inefficacy, cell based therapeutic modalities have been studied. However, not many efforts are put into safety evaluation of such applications. The aim of this study was to review the existing published literature on adverse events reported in studies with genetically modified cells for treatment of kidney disease. A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed and EMBASE for relevant articles published until June 2018. The search results were screened and relevant articles selected using pre-defined criteria, by two researchers independently. After initial screening of 6894 abstracts, a total number of 97 preclinical studies was finally included for full assessment. Of these, 61 (63%) presented an inappropriate study design for the evaluation of safety parameters. Only 4 studies (4%) had the optimal study design, while 32 (33%) showed sub-optimal study design with either direct or indirect evidence of adverse events. The high heterogeneity of studies included regarding cell type and number, genetic modification, administration route, and kidney disease model applied, combined with the consistent lack of appropriate control groups, makes a reliable safety evaluation of kidney cell-based therapies impossible. Only a limited number of relevant studies included looked into essential safety-related outcomes, such as inflammatory (48%), tumorigenic and teratogenic potential (12%), cell biodistribution (82%), microbiological safety with respect to microorganism contamination and latent viruses' reactivation (1%), as well as overall well-being and animal survival (19%). In conclusion, for benign cell-based therapies, well-designed pre-clinical studies, including all control groups required and good manufacturing processes securing safety, need to be done early in development. Preferably, this should be performed side by side with efficacy evaluation and according to the official guidelines of leading health organizations.

The case for introducing pre-registered confirmatory pharmacological pre-clinical studies

When evaluating the design of pre-clinical studies in the field of traumatic brain injury, we found substantial differences compared to phase III clinical trials, which in part may explain the difficulties in translating promising experimental drugs into approved treatments. By using network analysis, we also found cases where a large proportion of the studies evaluating a pre-clinical treatment was performed by inter-related researchers, which is potentially problematic. Subjecting all pre-clinical trials to the rigor of a phase III clinical trial is, however, likely not practically achievable. Instead, we repeat the call for a distinction to be made between exploratory and confirmatory pre-clinical studies.

Facilitating healthcare decisions by assessing the certainty in the evidence from preclinical animal studies

Laboratory animal studies are used in a wide range of human health related research areas, such as basic biomedical research, drug research, experimental surgery and environmental health. The results of these studies can be used to inform decisions regarding clinical research in humans, for example the decision to proceed to clinical trials. If the research question relates to potential harms with no expectation of benefit (e.g., toxicology), studies in experimental animals may provide the only relevant or controlled data and directly inform clinical management decisions. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important tools to provide robust and informative evidence summaries of these animal studies. Rating how certain we are about the evidence could provide important information about the translational probability of findings in experimental animal studies to clinical practice and probably improve it. Evidence summaries and certainty in the evidence ratings could also be used (1) to support selection of interventions with best therapeutic potential to be tested in clinical trials, (2) to justify a regulatory decision limiting human exposure (to drug or toxin), or to (3) support decisions on the utility of further animal experiments. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is the most widely used framework to rate the certainty in the evidence and strength of health care recommendations. Here we present how the GRADE approach could be used to rate the certainty in the evidence of preclinical animal studies in the context of therapeutic interventions. We also discuss the methodological challenges that we identified, and for which further work is needed. Examples are defining the importance of consistency within and across animal species and using GRADE's indirectness domain as a tool to predict translation from animal models to humans.

Stem cells and heart disease - Brake or accelerator?

After two decades of intensive research and attempts of clinical translation, stem cell based therapies for cardiac diseases are not getting closer to clinical success. This review tries to unravel the obstacles and focuses on underlying mechanisms as the target for regenerative therapies. At present, the principal outcome in clinical therapy does not reflect experimental evidence. It seems that the scientific obstacle is a lack of integration of knowledge from tissue repair and disease mechanisms. Recent insights from clinical trials delineate mechanisms of stem cell dysfunction and gene defects in repair mechanisms as cause of atherosclerosis and heart disease. These findings require a redirection of current practice of stem cell therapy and a reset using more detailed analysis of stem cell function interfering with disease mechanisms. To accelerate scientific development the authors suggest intensifying unified computational data analysis and shared data knowledge by using open-access data platforms.

Enhancing reproducibility: Failures from Reproducibility Initiatives underline core challenges

Efforts to address reproducibility concerns in biomedical research include: initiatives to improve journal publication standards and peer review; increased attention to publishing methodological details that enable experiments to be reconstructed; guidelines on standards for study design, implementation, analysis and execution; meta-analyses of multiple studies within a field to synthesize a common conclusion and; the formation of consortia to adopt uniform protocols and internally reproduce data. Another approach to addressing reproducibility are Reproducibility Initiatives (RIs), well-intended, high-profile, systematically peer-vetted initiatives that are intended to replace the traditional process of scientific self-correction. Outcomes from the RIs reported to date have questioned the usefulness of this approach, particularly when the RI outcome differs from other independent self-correction studies that have reproduced the original finding. As a failed RI attempt is a single outcome distinct from the original study, it cannot provide any definitive conclusions necessitating additional studies that the RI approach has neither the ability nor intent of conducting making it a questionable replacement for self-correction. A failed RI attempt also has the potential to damage the reputation of the author of the original finding. Reproduction is frequently confused with replication, an issue that is more than semantic with the former denoting "similarity" and the latter an "exact copy" - an impossible outcome in research because of known and unknown technical, environmental and motivational differences between the original and reproduction studies. To date, the RI framework has negatively impacted efforts to improve reproducibility, confounding attempts to determine whether a research finding is real.

Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor

Accumulating evidence indicates high risk of bias in preclinical animal research, questioning the scientific validity and reproducibility of published research findings. Systematic reviews found low rates of reporting of measures against risks of bias in the published literature (e.g., randomization, blinding, sample size calculation) and a correlation between low reporting rates and inflated treatment effects. That most animal research undergoes peer review or ethical review would offer the possibility to detect risks of bias at an earlier stage, before the research has been conducted. For example, in Switzerland, animal experiments are licensed based on a detailed description of the study protocol and a harm-benefit analysis. We therefore screened applications for animal experiments submitted to Swiss authorities (n = 1,277) for the rates at which the use of seven basic measures against bias (allocation concealment, blinding, randomization, sample size calculation, inclusion/exclusion criteria, primary outcome variable, and statistical analysis plan) were described and compared them with the reporting rates of the same measures in a representative sub-sample of publications (n = 50) resulting from studies described in these applications. Measures against bias were described at very low rates, ranging on average from 2.4% for statistical analysis plan to 19% for primary outcome variable in applications for animal experiments, and from 0.0% for sample size calculation to 34% for statistical analysis plan in publications from these experiments. Calculating an internal validity score (IVS) based on the proportion of the seven measures against bias, we found a weak positive correlation between the IVS of applications and that of publications (Spearman's rho = 0.34, p = 0.014), indicating that the rates of description of these measures in applications partly predict their rates of reporting in publications. These results indicate that the authorities licensing animal experiments are lacking important information about experimental conduct that determines the scientific validity of the findings, which may be critical for the weight attributed to the benefit of the research in the harm-benefit analysis. Similar to manuscripts getting accepted for publication despite poor reporting of measures against bias, applications for animal experiments may often be approved based on implicit confidence rather than explicit evidence of scientific rigor. Our findings shed serious doubt on the current authorization procedure for animal experiments, as well as the peer-review process for scientific publications, which in the long run may undermine the credibility of research. Developing existing authorization procedures that are already in place in many countries towards a preregistration system for animal research is one promising way to reform the system. This would not only benefit the scientific validity of findings from animal experiments but also help to avoid unnecessary harm to animals for inconclusive research.

Animal Study Registries: Results from a Stakeholder Analysis on Potential Strengths, Weaknesses, Facilitators, and Barriers

Publication bias in animal research, its extent, its predictors, and its potential countermeasures are increasingly discussed. Recent reports and conferences highlight the potential strengths of animal study registries (ASRs) in this regard. Others have warned that prospective registration of animal studies could diminish creativity, add administrative burdens, and complicate intellectual property issues in translational research. A literature review and 21 international key-informant interviews were conducted and thematically analyzed to develop a comprehensive matrix of main- and subcategories for potential ASR-related strengths, weaknesses, facilitators, and barriers (SWFBs). We identified 130 potential SWFBs. All stakeholder groups agreed that ASRs could in various ways improve the quality and refinement of animal studies while allowing their number to be reduced, as well as supporting meta-research on animal studies. However, all stakeholder groups also highlighted the potential for theft of ideas, higher administrative burdens, and reduced creativity and serendipity in animal studies. Much more detailed reasoning was captured in the interviews than is currently found in the literature, providing a comprehensive account of the issues and arguments around ASRs. All stakeholder groups highlighted compelling potential strengths of ASRs. Although substantial weaknesses and implementation barriers were highlighted as well, different governance measures might help to minimize or even eliminate their impact. Such measures might include confidentiality time frames for accessing prospectively registered protocols, harmonized reporting requirements across ASRs, ethics reviews, lab notebooks, and journal submissions. The comprehensive information gathered in this study could help to guide a more evidence-based debate and to design pilot tests for ASRs.

The manifold contributions over the last years on “publication bias” and “reproducibility crisis” in animal research initiated a debate on whether and how prospective animal study registries (ASRs) should be established in analogy to clinical trial registries. All recent debate, however, followed rather broad lines of argumentation and concluded that future decision-making on the issue of ASRs depends strongly on better knowledge about relevant characteristics of ASRs and about conflicting stakeholder interests. More qualitative but systematically developed evidence in this regard is needed. The primary objective of this study, therefore, was to present a systematically derived spectrum of all relevant strengths, weaknesses, facilitators and barriers (SWFBs) for ASRs. A systematic literature review and 21 key-informant interviews with experts from preclinical and clinical research, industry, and regulatory bodies were conducted to fulfill this objective. Our investigations resulted in a comprehensive and structured account of 130 issues and arguments around ASRs. Future debate and decision-making on ASRs might be heavily influenced by arguments and reasoning from individual experts and thus result in “eminence-based” policy making that relies on expert opinion. This study’s comprehensive spectrum of arguments and issues around ASR, developed through systematic and transparent methods, helps to balance the ongoing debate and thus facilitate a more evidence-based policy making.

Prevention of selective outcome reporting: let us start from the beginning

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals and patients could be negatively influenced in their judgments by articles and meta-analyses presenting selective outcome reporting. Clinical trials should be transparent from inception to the publication of results. To this end, trial prospective registration is an ethical and scientific requirement that have shown to be effective in preventing selective reporting of outcomes. However, even journals with a clear pre-registration policy publish trial results that were retrospectively registered.

SITUATION

Analyses of registration of randomized clinical trials recently published in top specialty journals and of meta-analyses with suspicion of including trials with outcome reporting bias have shown that retrospective registration is in the range from 56 to 76 %. This translates into publication of primary endpoints that differ from those included in the registry: some 30 % of trials showed discrepancies between the primary endpoint in the trial registry and the article. Furthermore, it has been shown that 8 % of all clinical trials published by 6 high-impact ICMJE-member journals was retrospectively registered after primary endpoint ascertainment could have had taken place, raising concerns that endpoints may not have been pre-specified, or were changed. With regards to meta-analyses, 34 % of Cochrane systematic reviews included one or more trials with a high suspicion of selective reporting bias for the primary outcome.

PROPOSAL

Retrospective registration of trials may foster selective outcome reporting unless journal editors implement specific quality control processes aiming to prevent or minimize this type of bias. Prospective registration of trials-and protocol public disclosure if proven effective in future studies-prevents outcome reporting bias, a must to ensure clinicians and patients have access to reliable clinical trial results. Journal editors should enforce, rather than encourage, appropriate measures to ensure publication of trials free of outcome reporting bias.

Dishonesty in scientific research

Fraudulent business practices, such as those leading to the Enron scandal and the conviction of Bernard Madoff, evoke a strong sense of public outrage. But fraudulent or dishonest actions are not exclusive to the realm of big corporations or to evil individuals without consciences. Dishonest actions are all too prevalent in everyone's daily lives, because people are constantly encountering situations in which they can gain advantages by cutting corners. Whether it's adding a few dollars in value to the stolen items reported on an insurance claim form or dropping outlier data points from a figure to make a paper sound more interesting, dishonesty is part of the human condition. Here, we explore how people rationalize dishonesty, the implications for scientific research, and what can be done to foster a culture of research integrity.

Translational failure of anti-inflammatory compounds for myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of large animal models

AIMS

Numerous anti-inflammatory drugs have been tested in large animal studies of myocardial infarction (MI). Despite positive results, translation of anti-inflammatory strategies into clinical practice has proved to be difficult. Critical disparities between preclinical and clinical study design that influence efficacy may partly be responsible for this translational failure. The aim of the present systematic review was to better understand which factors underlie the failure of transition towards the clinic.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Meta-analysis and regression of large animal studies were performed to identify sources that influenced effect size of anti-inflammatory compounds in large animal models of MI. We included 183 studies, containing 3331 large animals. Infarct size (IS) as a ratio of the area at risk (12.7%; 95% confidence interval, CI 11.1-14.4%, P < 0.001) and IS as a ratio of the left ventricle (3.9%; 95% CI 3.1-4.7%, P < 0.001) were reduced in treatment compared with control groups. Effect size was higher when outcome was assessed early after MI (P = 0.013) and where studies included only male animals (P < 0.001). Mortality in treated animals was higher in studies that blinded the investigator during the experiment (P = 0.041) and depended on the type of drug used (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

As expected, treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs leads to smaller infarct size in large animal MI models. Timing of outcome assessment, sex, and study quality are significantly associated with outcome and may explain part of the translational failure in clinical settings. Effect size depends on the type of drug used, enabling identification of compounds for future clinical testing.

Similar effect of autologous and allogeneic cell therapy for ischemic heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of large animal studies

RATIONALE

In regenerative therapy for ischemic heart disease, use of both autologous and allogeneic stem cells has been investigated. Autologous cell can be applied without immunosuppression, but availability is restricted, and cells have been exposed to risk factors and aging. Allogeneic cell therapy enables preoperative production of potent cell lines and immediate availability of cell products, allowing off-the-shelf therapy. It is unknown which cell source is preferred with regard to improving cardiac function.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a meta-analysis of preclinical data of cell therapy for ischemic heart disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a systematic literature search to identify publications describing controlled preclinical trials of unmodified stem cell therapy in large animal models of myocardial ischemia. Data from 82 studies involving 1415 animals showed a significant improvement in mean left ventricular ejection fraction in treated compared with control animals (8.3%, 95% confidence interval, 7.1-9.5; P<0.001). Meta-regression revealed a similar difference in left ventricular ejection fraction in autologous (8.8%, 95% confidence interval, 7.3-10.3; n=981) and allogeneic (7.3%, 95% confidence interval, 4.4-10.2, n=331; P=0.3) cell therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Autologous and allogeneic cell therapy for ischemic heart disease show a similar improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction in large animal models of myocardial ischemia, compared with placebo. These results are important for the design of future clinical trials.