01904nas a2200469   4500000000100000000000100001008003900002260001700041653001800058653002600076653002100102653002500123653002400148653003200172653002600204653002300230100002300253700002400276700002900300700002300329700001800352700001900370700001500389700002000404700001800424700002700442700001900469700001900488700002300507700001600530700002100546700002200567700002000589700002100609700001800630245007300648856008200721300001300803490000700816520059700823022001401420       0                             d  cOct 13, 201510aBibliometrics10aConflicts of interest10aMedical journals10aMedical risk factors10aResearch assessment10aResearch quality assessment10aScientific publishing10aSystematic reviews1 aMalcolm R. Macleod1 aAaron Lawson McLean1 aAikaterini Kyriakopoulou1 aStylianos Serghiou1 aArno de Wilde1 aNicki Sherratt1 aTheo Hirst1 aRachel Hemblade1 aZsanett Bahor1 aCristina Nunes-Fonseca1 aAparna Potluru1 aAndrew Thomson1 aJulija Baginskitae1 aKieren Egan1 aHanna Vesterinen1 aGillian L. Currie1 aLeonid Churilov1 aDavid W. Howells1 aEmily S. Sena00aRisk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement  uhttps://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273  ae10022730 v133 aThe 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.  a1545-7885