@article{3231,
  keywords = {Bibliometrics, Conflicts of interest, Medical journals, Medical risk factors, Research assessment, Research quality assessment, Scientific publishing, Systematic reviews},
  author = {Malcolm R. Macleod and Aaron Lawson McLean and Aikaterini Kyriakopoulou and Stylianos Serghiou and Arno de Wilde and Nicki Sherratt and Theo Hirst and Rachel Hemblade and Zsanett Bahor and Cristina Nunes-Fonseca and Aparna Potluru and Andrew Thomson and Julija Baginskitae and Kieren Egan and Hanna Vesterinen and Gillian L. Currie and Leonid Churilov and David W. Howells and Emily S. Sena},
  title = {Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement},
  abstract = {The reliability of experimental findings depends on the rigour of experimental design. Here we show limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in a random sample of life sciences publications, significantly lower reporting of randomisation in work published in journals of high impact, and very limited reporting of measures to reduce the risk of bias in publications from leading United Kingdom institutions. Ascertainment of differences between institutions might serve both as a measure of research quality and as a tool for institutional efforts to improve research quality.},
  year = {0},
  journal = {PLOS Biology},
  volume = {13},
  pages = {e1002273},
  month = {Oct 13, 2015},
  issn = {1545-7885},
  url = {https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273},
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273},
  language = {en},
}