c/o The Medical Research Council, 2nd. floor, David Phillips Building, Polaris House, North Star Av., Swindon, Wiltshire, SN2 1FL, UK.
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 16;10(1):17577. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-74538-3.
Too many pre-clinical experiments are giving results which cannot be reproduced. This may be because the experiments are incorrectly designed. In "Completely randomized" (CR) and "Randomised block" (RB) experimental designs, both the assignment of treatments to experimental subjects and the order in which the experiment is done, are randomly determined. These designs have been used successfully in agricultural and industrial research and in clinical trials for nearly a century without excessive levels of irreproducibility. They must also be used in pre-clinical research if the excessive level of irreproducibility is to be eliminated. A survey of 100 papers involving mice and rats was used to determine whether scientists had used the CR or RB designs. The papers were assigned to three categories "Design acceptable", "Randomised to treatment groups", so of doubtful validity, or "Room for improvement". Only 32 ± 4.7% of the papers fell into the first group, although none of them actually named either the CR or RB design. If the current high level of irreproducibility is to be eliminated, it is essential that scientists engaged in pre-clinical research use "Completely randomised" (CR), "Randomised block" (RB), or one of the more specialised named experimental designs described in textbooks on the subject.
太多的临床前实验给出了无法重现的结果。这可能是因为实验设计不正确。在“完全随机”(CR)和“随机区组”(RB)实验设计中,处理的分配和实验的顺序都是随机确定的。这些设计在农业和工业研究以及近一个世纪的临床试验中得到了成功应用,并没有出现过度的不可重复性。如果要消除过度的不可重复性,这些设计也必须用于临床前研究。一项涉及小鼠和大鼠的 100 篇论文的调查,用于确定科学家是否使用了 CR 或 RB 设计。这些论文被分为三类:“设计可接受”、“随机分配到治疗组”,因此有效性值得怀疑,或“有待改进”。尽管实际上没有一篇论文提到 CR 或 RB 设计,但只有 32 ± 4.7%的论文属于第一类。如果要消除当前高不可重复性的问题,从事临床前研究的科学家必须使用“完全随机”(CR)、“随机区组”(RB)或教科书中描述的更专门的命名实验设计之一。