Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Stroke. 2009;40:e50-e52
Published online before print August 14, 2008, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.525386
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
40/3/e50    most recent
STROKEAHA.108.525386v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Macleod, M. R.
Right arrow Articles by Howells, D. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Macleod, M. R.
Right arrow Articles by Howells, D. W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Ethics and Policy
Right arrow Animal models of human disease

(Stroke. 2009;40:e50.)
© 2009 American Heart Association, Inc.


Comments, Opinions, and Reviews

Good Laboratory Practice

Preventing Introduction of Bias at the Bench

Malcolm R. Macleod; Marc Fisher; Victoria O'Collins; Emily S. Sena; Ulrich Dirnagl; Philip M.W. Bath; Alistair Buchan; H. Bart van der Worp; Richard Traystman; Kazuo Minematsu; Geoffrey A. Donnan David W. Howells

From the Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences (M.R.M., E.S.S.), University of Edinburgh, UK; the Department of Neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School (M.F.), Worcester, Mass, USA; the National Stroke Research Institute & University of Melbourne Department of Medicine (V.O., E.S.S., G.A.D., D.W.H.), Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia; the Charité Department for Experimental Neurology & Center for Stroke Research (U.D.), Berlin, Germany; the Stroke Trials Unit (P.M.W.B.), University of Nottingham, UK; the Acute Stroke Program (A.B.), Nuffield Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK; the Department of Neurology (H.B.v.d.W.), Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands; the University of Colorado Denver (R.T.), Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colo, USA; and the Cerebrovascular Division (K.M.), Department of Medicine, National Cardiovascular Center, Osaka, Japan.

Correspondence to David Howells, National Stroke Research Institute, Austin Health, Studley Rd, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia. E-mail david.howells{at}unimelb.edu.au

Background and Purpose— As a research community, we have failed to demonstrate that drugs which show substantial efficacy in animal models of cerebral ischemia can also improve outcome in human stroke.

Summary of Review— Accumulating evidence suggests this may be due, at least in part, to problems in the design, conduct and reporting of animal experiments which create a systematic bias resulting in the overstatement of neuroprotective efficacy.

Conclusions— Here, we set out a series of measures to reduce bias in the design, conduct and reporting of animal experiments modeling human stroke.


Key Words: animal models • basic science • drug trials • education • experimental • outcomes • preventing bias • translational research




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
StrokeHome page
V. E. O'Collins, G. A. Donnan, M. R. Macleod, and D. W. Howells
Scope of Preclinical Testing Versus Quality Control Within Experiments
Stroke, July 1, 2009; 40(7): e497 - e497.
[Full Text] [PDF]