Ensuring transparency and minimization of methodologic bias in preclinical pain research: PPRECISE considerations. Issue 4 (April 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Andrews, Nick A.; Latrémolière, Alban; Basbaum, Allan I.; Mogil, Jeffrey S.; Porreca, Frank; Rice, Andrew S.C.; Woolf, Clifford J.; Currie, Gillian L.; Dworkin, Robert H.; Eisenach, James C.; Evans, Scott; Gewandter, Jennifer S.; Gover, Tony D.; Handwerker, Hermann; Huang, Wenlong; Iyengar, Smriti; Jensen, Mark P.; Kennedy, Jeffrey D.; Lee, Nancy; Levine, Jon; Lidster, Katie; Machin, Ian; McDermott, Michael P.; McMahon, Stephen B.; Price, Theodore J.; Ross, Sarah E.; Scherrer, Grégory; Seal, Rebecca P.; Sena, Emily S.; Silva, Elizabeth; Stone, Laura; Svensson, Camilla I.; Turk, Dennis C.; Whiteside, Garth;
• Is Part Of: Pain. Volume 157:Issue 4(2016)
• Publication Date: 2016-04
• Subjects: Transparent reporting -- Consensus -- Bias -- Internal validity; Pain -- Periodicals; Douleur -- Périodiques; Anesthésie -- Périodiques; Pain; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.0472
• DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000458
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0304-3959

Abstract

Abstract : Abstract: There is growing concern about lack of scientific rigor and transparent reporting across many preclinical fields of biological research. Poor experimental design and lack of transparent reporting can result in conscious or unconscious experimental bias, producing results that are not replicable. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public–private partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sponsored a consensus meeting of the Preclinical Pain Research Consortium for Investigating Safety and Efficacy (PPRECISE) Working Group. International participants from universities, funding agencies, government agencies, industry, and a patient advocacy organization attended. Reduction of publication bias, increasing the ability of others to faithfully repeat experimental methods, and increased transparency of data reporting were specifically discussed. Parameters deemed essential to increase confidence in the published literature were clear, specific reporting of an a priori hypothesis and definition of primary outcome measure. Power calculations and whether measurement of minimal meaningful effect size to determine these should be a core component of the preclinical research effort provoked considerable discussion, with many but not all agreeing. Greater transparency of reporting should be driven by scientists, journal editors, reviewers, and grant funders. The conduct of high-quality science that is fully reported should not preclude novelty and innovation in preclinical pain research, and indeed, any efforts that curtail such innovation would be misguided. We believe that to achieve the goal of finding effective new treatments for patients with pain, the pain field needs to deal with these challenging issues. Abstract : Improved reporting standards, and adoption of experimental protocols that emphasize control of experimental bias, are likely to improve understanding and confidence in pain biology.