Reporting Standards for Preclinical Studies of Stroke Therapy

Our fucking failures of stroke associations should have noticed and corrected this problem with research decades ago.
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/47/10/2435.extract?etoc

Farhaan Vahidy, Wolf-Rüdiger Schäbitz, Marc Fisher and Jaroslaw Aronowski

Download PDF

http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.013643 Published: October 1, 2016

• Article
• Figures & Tables
• Info & Metrics
• eLetters

• Editorials
• animal research
• biomedical research
• cerebrovascular circulation
• checklist
• consensus

The unmet need for development of new stroke therapies is enormous. Evidence generated from positive, null, or negative preclinical studies for various therapeutic agents is crucial to enhancing scientific progress. The scientific community shares a societal responsibility to practice and promote meticulous conduct and reporting of all experimental studies. A systematic survey conducted by the UK government–sponsored National Center for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) reported that only 59% of biomedical animal studies stated the hypotheses and objectives, and ≤87% did not use randomization.¹ This, in part, led to the development of the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines,² modeled after the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards for Reporting …

View Full Text