Invited review: Completeness of reporting of experiments: REFLECTing on a year of animal trials in the Journal of Dairy Science

27Citations
Citations of this article
46Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Reproducibility is an essential element of the scientific process, and it requires clear and complete reporting of study design, conduct, and analysis. In the human and animal health literature, incomplete reporting is associated with biased effect estimates. Moreover, incomplete reporting precludes knowledge synthesis and undervalues the resources allocated to the primary research. The Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials for Livestock and Food Safety (REFLECT) statement, published in 2010, is a checklist developed by expert consensus to provide guidance on what study elements should be reported in any intervention trial (designed experiment) involving livestock. The Journal of Dairy Science (JDS) has recently endorsed the use of reporting guidelines. To assess the status of reporting of controlled experiments in JDS and to provide a baseline for future comparison, we evaluated the reporting of 18 items from the REFLECT statement checklist in a sample of 137 controlled trials published in JDS in 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance and then evaluated a sample of 120 papers reporting controlled trials (experimental studies involving at least one intervention and one comparison or control group), using yes or no questions. Although some items, such as treatment details and statistical analysis, were well reported, other areas, including sample size justification, allocation concealment, blinding, study flow, baseline data, and ancillary analyses, were often not reported or were incompletely described. This work highlights the need for authors and reviewers to take advantage of guidelines and checklists for reporting. Adherence to reporting guidelines can help improve the completeness of reporting of research, expedite and better inform the peer-review process, increase clarity for the reader, and allow for knowledge synthesis, such as meta-analysis, all of which serve to increase the value of the work conducted.

References Powered by Scopus

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

53151Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Improving bioscience research reporting: The arrive guidelines for reporting animal research

5691Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials

3777Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

INVITED REVIEW: Strategic use of microbial-based probiotics and prebiotics in dairy calf rearing

64Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

ADSA Foundation Scholar Award: New frontiers in calf and heifer nutrition—From conception to puberty

29Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Graduate Student Literature Review: What do we know about the effects of clinical and subclinical hypocalcemia on health and performance of dairy cows?

28Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Winder, C. B., Churchill, K. J., Sargeant, J. M., LeBlanc, S. J., O’Connor, A. M., & Renaud, D. L. (2019, June 1). Invited review: Completeness of reporting of experiments: REFLECTing on a year of animal trials in the Journal of Dairy Science. Journal of Dairy Science. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15797

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 17

65%

Researcher 5

19%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

12%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8

36%

Medicine and Dentistry 6

27%

Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medic... 6

27%

Environmental Science 2

9%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free