El sesgo de publicación y la no reproducibilidad en el balance ético de los proyectos de investigación con animales

Teresa Rodrigo Calduch

Resumen


La normativa que rige la investigación con animales establece la aprobación de proyectos de investigación tras haber sido sometidos a una valoración ética costes-beneficios apropiada. El sesgo de publicación y la falta de reproducibilidad en la investigación animal socavan el adecuado balance ético de los proyectos. Es necesario promover medidas que impliquen a todos los participantes (científicos, grupos editoriales, organismos gubernamentales y financiadores) y que generen un cambio en la cultura científica que revalorice los resultados negativos como parte del conocimiento científico general e incremente la calidad de las publicaciones.


Palabras clave


investigación animal, balance ético, sesgo de publicación, resultados negativos, crisis de reproducibilidad

Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Alfaro V (2005) Specification of Laboratory Animal Use in Scientific Articles: Current Low Detail in the Journals’ Instructions for Authors and Some Proposals. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 27(7): 495-502.

Baker M (2016) 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533 (7604): 452-454.

Begley CG, Ioannidis JPA (2015) Reproducibility in Science: Improving the Standard for Basic and Preclinical Research. Circulation Research 116 (1): 116-126.

Bert B, Heinl C, Chmielewska J, Schwarz F, Grune B, Hensel A, et al. (2019) Refining animal research: The Animal Study Registry. PLoS Biol 17(10): e3000463.

Chan AW, Altman DG (2005) Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 330:753.

Chan A, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials: Comparison of Protocols to Published Articles. JAMA 291(20):2457-2465.

Conradi U, Joffe AR (2017) Publication bias in animal research presented at the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference. BMC Res Notes 10:262.

De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The New England Journal of Medicine 351(12):1250-1251.

Directiva 2010/63/UE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 22 de septiembre de 2010, relativa a la protección de los animales utilizados para fines científicos; «DOUE» núm. 276, de 20 de octubre de 2010, págs. 33-79.

Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, for the Reporting Bias Group (2013) Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review. PLoS ONE 8(7): e66844.

Fanelli D (2012) Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90, 891-904. Festing MF, Altman DG (2002) Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. ILAR J 43: 244-258.

Festing MF, Altman DG (2002) Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. ILAR J 43: 244-258.

Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS (2015) The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research. PLoS Biol. 13: e1002165.

Granados-Zuniga J (1997) Information on the use of laboratory animals indicated in scientific articles. Rev Biol Trop 45: 979-981.

Jost J, Hunyady O (2003) The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology 13, 111-153.

Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG (2010) Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research. PLoS Biol 8(6): e1000412.

Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MFW, Cuthill IC, et al. (2009) Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals. PLoS ONE 4(11): e7824.

Kuhn TS (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Leung V, Rousseau-Blass F, Beauchamp G, Pang DSJ (2018) ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesia. PLoS ONE 13(5): e0197882.

Macleod M, Mohan S (2019) Reproducibility and Rigor in Animal-Based Research. ILAR Journal 60(1):17-23.

Matosin N, Frank E, Engel M, Lum JS, and Newell KA (2014) Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture. Disease Models and Mechanisms 7(2): 171-173.

McCance I (1995) Assessment of statistical procedures used in papers in the Australian Veterinary Journal. Australian Veterinary Journal 72(9): 322-328.

Orden ECC/566/2015, de 20 de marzo, por la que se establecen los requisitos de capacitación que debe cumplir el personal que maneje animales utilizados, criados o suministrados con fines de experimentación y otros fines científicos, incluyendo la docencia. «BOE» núm. 78, de 1 de abril de 2015, págs. 27940-27973.

Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Altman DG, Avey MT, et al (2018) Revision of the ARRIVE guidelines: rationale and scope. BMJ Open Science 2:e000002.

Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, et al. (2019a) The ARRIVE guidelines 2019: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. bioRxiv:703181.

Percie du Sert N, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne W, et al. (2019b) Reporting animal research: Explanation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2019. bioRxiv:703355.

Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, et al. (2006) Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 185(5):263-267.

Real Decreto 53/2013, de 1 de febrero, por el que se establecen las normas básicas aplicables para la protección de los animales utilizados en experimentación y otros fines científicos, incluyendo la docencia. «BOE» núm. 34, de 8 de febrero de 2013, págs. 11370-11421.

Riet G, Korevaar DA, Leenaars M, Sterk PJ, Van Noorden CJF, et al. (2012) Publication Bias in Laboratory Animal Research: A Survey on Magnitude, Drivers, Consequences and Potential Solutions. PLoS ONE 7(9): e43404.

Rosenthal R (1979) The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin 86(3), 638-641.

Russell WMS, Burch RL (1959) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen, London.

Scherer RW, Meerpohl JJ, Pfeifer N, Schmucker C, Schwarzer G, von Elm E (2018) Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 11. Art. No.: MR000005.

Schmucker C, Schell LK, Portalupi S, Oeller P, Cabrera L, et al. (2014) Extent of Non- Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries. PLoS ONE 9(12): e114023.

Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, the CONSORT Group (2010) CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340: c332.

Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PMW, Howells DW, Macleod MR (2010) Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major Overstatement of Efficacy. PLoS Biol 8(3): e1000344.

Smith JA, Birke L, Sadler D (1997) Reporting animal use in scientific papers. Lab Anim 31: 312-317.

Tsilidis KK, Panagiotou OA, Sena ES, Aretouli E, Evangelou E, et al. (2013) Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological Diseases. PLoS Biol 11(7): e1001609.

Wieschowski S, Biernot S, Deutsch S, Glage S, Bleich A, Tolba R, et al. (2019) Publication rates in animal research. Extent and characteristics of published and non-published animal studies followed up at two German university medical centres. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0223758.

Wieschowski S, Silva DS, Strech D (2016) Animal Study Registries: Results from a Stakeholder Analysis on Potential Strengths, Weaknesses, Facilitators, and Barriers. PLoS Biol 14(11): e2000391.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.1344/rbd2021.51.31333

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.




Copyright (c) 2021 Teresa Rodrigo Calduch

Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional.

© 2004-2019 Máster en Bioética y Derecho - Observatori de Bioètica i Dret - Cátedra UNESCO de Bioética - Universitat de Barcelona

RCUB RCUB Declaració ètica Avís Legal Centre de Recursos per a l'Aprenentatge i la Investigació Universitat de Barcelona