Department of General Practice, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e43404. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043404. Epub 2012 Sep 5.
Publication bias jeopardizes evidence-based medicine, mainly through biased literature syntheses. Publication bias may also affect laboratory animal research, but evidence is scarce.
To assess the opinion of laboratory animal researchers on the magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions for publication bias. And to explore the impact of size of the animals used, seniority of the respondent, working in a for-profit organization and type of research (fundamental, pre-clinical, or both) on those opinions.
Internet-based survey.
All animal laboratories in The Netherlands.
Laboratory animal researchers.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Median (interquartile ranges) strengths of beliefs on 5 and 10-point scales (1: totally unimportant to 5 or 10: extremely important).
Overall, 454 researchers participated. They considered publication bias a problem in animal research (7 (5 to 8)) and thought that about 50% (32-70) of animal experiments are published. Employees (n = 21) of for-profit organizations estimated that 10% (5 to 50) are published. Lack of statistical significance (4 (4 to 5)), technical problems (4 (3 to 4)), supervisors (4 (3 to 5)) and peer reviewers (4 (3 to 5)) were considered important reasons for non-publication (all on 5-point scales). Respondents thought that mandatory publication of study protocols and results, or the reasons why no results were obtained, may increase scientific progress but expected increased bureaucracy. These opinions did not depend on size of the animal used, seniority of the respondent or type of research.
Non-publication of "negative" results appears to be prevalent in laboratory animal research. If statistical significance is indeed a main driver of publication, the collective literature on animal experimentation will be biased. This will impede the performance of valid literature syntheses. Effective, yet efficient systems should be explored to counteract selective reporting of laboratory animal research.
发表偏倚危及循证医学，主要是通过有偏的文献综合。发表偏倚也可能影响实验室动物研究，但证据很少。
评估实验室动物研究人员对发表偏倚的程度、驱动因素、后果以及潜在解决方案的看法。并探讨研究动物的大小、应答者的资历、在营利性组织工作以及研究类型（基础、临床前或两者兼有）对这些观点的影响。
基于互联网的调查。
荷兰所有动物实验室。
实验室动物研究人员。
在 5 分和 10 分制（1：不重要到 5 或 10：非常重要）上对 5 点和 10 点量表的信念强度的中位数（四分位距）。
共有 454 名研究人员参与了此次研究。他们认为发表偏倚是动物研究中的一个问题（7（5 到 8）），并且认为大约 50%（32-70）的动物实验发表了。营利性组织的员工（n = 21）估计有 10%（5 到 50）发表了。缺乏统计学意义（4（4 到 5））、技术问题（4（3 到 4））、导师（4（3 到 5））和同行评审（4（3 到 5））被认为是不发表的重要原因（均为 5 分制）。受访者认为强制性发表研究方案和结果，或不发表结果的原因，可能会增加科学进步，但预计会增加官僚主义。这些观点并不取决于研究动物的大小、应答者的资历或研究类型。
“阴性”结果的不发表在实验室动物研究中似乎很普遍。如果统计学意义确实是发表的主要驱动因素，那么关于动物实验的集体文献将存在偏差。这将阻碍有效的文献综合。应探讨有效的、但高效的系统来对抗实验室动物研究的选择性报告。
