Original Data of Reichlin et al PLoS One 2016

Reproducibility
in animal research is alarmingly low, and a lack of scientific rigor has been
proposed as a major cause. Systematic reviews found low reporting rates of
measures against risks of bias (e.g., randomization, blinding), and a
correlation between low reporting rates and overstated treatment effects.
Reporting rates of measures against bias are thus used as a proxy measure for
scientific rigor, and reporting guidelines (e.g., ARRIVE) have become a major
weapon in the fight against risks of bias in animal research. Surprisingly,
animal scientists have never been asked about their use of measures against
risks of bias and how they report these in publications. Whether poor reporting
reflects poor use of such measures, and whether reporting guidelines may
effectively reduce risks of bias has therefore remained elusive. To address
these questions, we asked in vivo researchers about their use and reporting of
measures against risks of bias and examined how self-reports relate to reporting
rates obtained through systematic reviews. An online survey was sent out to all
registered in vivo researchers in Switzerland (N=1891) and was complemented by
personal interviews with five representative in vivo researchers to facilitate
interpretation of the survey results.