eCite Digital Repository

Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological Diseases

Citation

Tsilidis, KK and Panagiotou, OA and Sena, ES and Aretouli, E and Evangelou, E and Howells, DW and Al-Shahi Salman, R and Macleod, MR and Ioannidis, JPA, Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological Diseases, Public Library of Science Biology, 11, (7) Article e1001609. ISSN 1544-9173 (2013) [Refereed Article]

DOI: doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001609

Abstract

Animal studies generate valuable hypotheses that lead to the conduct of preventive or therapeutic clinical trials. We assessed whether there is evidence for excess statistical significance in results of animal studies on neurological disorders, suggesting biases. We used data from meta-analyses of interventions deposited in Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data in Experimental Studies (CAMARADES). The number of observed studies with statistically significant results (O) was compared with the expected number (E), based on the statistical power of each study under different assumptions for the plausible effect size. We assessed 4,445 datasets synthesized in 160 meta-analyses on Alzheimer disease (n = 2), experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (n = 34), focal ischemia (n = 16), intracerebral hemorrhage (n = 61), Parkinson disease (n = 45), and spinal cord injury (n = 2). 112 meta-analyses (70%) found nominally (p≤0.05) statistically significant summary fixed effects. Assuming the effect size in the most precise study to be a plausible effect, 919 out of 4,445 nominally significant results were expected versus 1,719 observed (p<10⁻⁹). Excess significance was present across all neurological disorders, in all subgroups defined by methodological characteristics, and also according to alternative plausible effects. Asymmetry tests also showed evidence of small-study effects in 74 (46%) meta-analyses. Significantly effective interventions with more than 500 animals, and no hints of bias were seen in eight (5%) meta-analyses. Overall, there are too many animal studies with statistically significant results in the literature of neurological disorders. This observation suggests strong biases, with selective analysis and outcome reporting biases being plausible explanations, and provides novel evidence on how these biases might influence the whole research domain of neurological animal literature.

Item Details

Item Type:Refereed Article
Research Division:Medical and Health Sciences
Research Group:Neurosciences
Research Field:Neurology and Neuromuscular Diseases
Objective Division:Health
Objective Group:Clinical Health (Organs, Diseases and Abnormal Conditions)
Objective Field:Nervous System and Disorders
Author:Howells, DW (Professor David Howells)
ID Code:101001
Year Published:2013
Web of Science® Times Cited:119
Deposited By:Office of the School of Medicine
Deposited On:2015-06-05
Last Modified:2017-11-06
Downloads:0

Repository Staff Only: item control page