Ensuring transparency and minimization of methodologic bias in preclinical pain research

PPRECISE considerations

Nick A. Andrews, Alban Latrémolière, Allan I. Basbaum, Jeffrey S. Mogil, Frank Porreca, Andrew S. C. Rice, Clifford J. Woolf, Gillian L. Currie, Robert H. Dworkin, James C. Eisenach, Scott Evans, Jennifer S. Gewandter, Tony D. Gover, Hermann Handwerker, Wenlong Huang, Smriti Iyengar, Mark P. Jensen, Jeffrey D. Kennedy, Nancy Lee, Jon Levine & 14 others Katie Lidster, Ian Machin, Michael P. McDermott, Stephen B. McMahon, Theodore J. Price, Sarah E. Ross, Grégory Scherrer, Rebecca P. Seal, Emily S. Sena, Elizabeth Silva, Laura Stone, Camilla I. Svensson, Dennis C. Turk, Garth Whiteside

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

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 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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 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 in order to achieve the goal of finding effective new treatments for patients with pain, the pain field needs to deal with these challenging issues.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)901-909
Number of pages9
JournalPain
Volume157
Issue number4
Early online date16 Dec 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2016

Fingerprint

Safety
Pain
Research
Research Design
Public-Private Sector Partnerships
Patient Advocacy
Government Agencies
Publication Bias
Aptitude
Organized Financing
United States Food and Drug Administration
Analgesics
Anesthetics
Consensus
Industry
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Clinical Trials
Organizations
Therapeutics
Power (Psychology)

Keywords

  • transparent reporting
  • consensus
  • bias
  • internal validity

Cite this

Andrews, N. A., Latrémolière, A., Basbaum, A. I., Mogil, J. S., Porreca, F., Rice, A. S. C., ... Whiteside, G. (2016). Ensuring transparency and minimization of methodologic bias in preclinical pain research: PPRECISE considerations. Pain, 157(4), 901-909. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000458

Ensuring transparency and minimization of methodologic bias in preclinical pain research : PPRECISE considerations. / 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.

In: Pain, Vol. 157, No. 4, 04.2016, p. 901-909.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Andrews, NA, Latrémolière, A, Basbaum, AI, Mogil, JS, Porreca, F, Rice, ASC, Woolf, CJ, Currie, GL, Dworkin, RH, Eisenach, JC, Evans, S, Gewandter, JS, Gover, TD, Handwerker, H, Huang, W, Iyengar, S, Jensen, MP, Kennedy, JD, Lee, N, Levine, J, Lidster, K, Machin, I, McDermott, MP, McMahon, SB, Price, TJ, Ross, SE, Scherrer, G, Seal, RP, Sena, ES, Silva, E, Stone, L, Svensson, CI, Turk, DC & Whiteside, G 2016, 'Ensuring transparency and minimization of methodologic bias in preclinical pain research: PPRECISE considerations', Pain, vol. 157, no. 4, pp. 901-909. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000458
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. / Ensuring transparency and minimization of methodologic bias in preclinical pain research : PPRECISE considerations. In: Pain. 2016 ; Vol. 157, No. 4. pp. 901-909.
@article{f4b1c0eb4227436985ecbb324f55c89e,
title = "Ensuring transparency and minimization of methodologic bias in preclinical pain research: PPRECISE considerations",
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 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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 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 in order to achieve the goal of finding effective new treatments for patients with pain, the pain field needs to deal with these challenging issues.",
keywords = "transparent reporting, consensus, bias, internal validity",
author = "Andrews, {Nick A.} and Alban Latr{\'e}moli{\`e}re and Basbaum, {Allan I.} and Mogil, {Jeffrey S.} and Frank Porreca and Rice, {Andrew S. C.} and Woolf, {Clifford J.} and Currie, {Gillian L.} and Dworkin, {Robert H.} and Eisenach, {James C.} and Scott Evans and Gewandter, {Jennifer S.} and Gover, {Tony D.} and Hermann Handwerker and Wenlong Huang and Smriti Iyengar and Jensen, {Mark P.} and Kennedy, {Jeffrey D.} and Nancy Lee and Jon Levine and Katie Lidster and Ian Machin and McDermott, {Michael P.} and McMahon, {Stephen B.} and Price, {Theodore J.} and Ross, {Sarah E.} and Gr{\'e}gory Scherrer and Seal, {Rebecca P.} and Sena, {Emily S.} and Elizabeth Silva and Laura Stone and Svensson, {Camilla I.} and Turk, {Dennis C.} and Garth Whiteside",
note = "Acknowledgements The authors thank Allison Lin, Dan Mellon, and LiSheng Chen for their help throughout the process of writing this article.",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000458",
language = "English",
volume = "157",
pages = "901--909",
journal = "Pain",
issn = "0304-3959",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ensuring transparency and minimization of methodologic bias in preclinical pain research

T2 - PPRECISE considerations

AU - Andrews, Nick A.

AU - Latrémolière, Alban

AU - Basbaum, Allan I.

AU - Mogil, Jeffrey S.

AU - Porreca, Frank

AU - Rice, Andrew S. C.

AU - Woolf, Clifford J.

AU - Currie, Gillian L.

AU - Dworkin, Robert H.

AU - Eisenach, James C.

AU - Evans, Scott

AU - Gewandter, Jennifer S.

AU - Gover, Tony D.

AU - Handwerker, Hermann

AU - Huang, Wenlong

AU - Iyengar, Smriti

AU - Jensen, Mark P.

AU - Kennedy, Jeffrey D.

AU - Lee, Nancy

AU - Levine, Jon

AU - Lidster, Katie

AU - Machin, Ian

AU - McDermott, Michael P.

AU - McMahon, Stephen B.

AU - Price, Theodore J.

AU - Ross, Sarah E.

AU - Scherrer, Grégory

AU - Seal, Rebecca P.

AU - Sena, Emily S.

AU - Silva, Elizabeth

AU - Stone, Laura

AU - Svensson, Camilla I.

AU - Turk, Dennis C.

AU - Whiteside, Garth

N1 - Acknowledgements The authors thank Allison Lin, Dan Mellon, and LiSheng Chen for their help throughout the process of writing this article.

PY - 2016/4

Y1 - 2016/4

N2 - 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 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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 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 in order to achieve the goal of finding effective new treatments for patients with pain, the pain field needs to deal with these challenging issues.

AB - 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 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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 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 in order to achieve the goal of finding effective new treatments for patients with pain, the pain field needs to deal with these challenging issues.

KW - transparent reporting

KW - consensus

KW - bias

KW - internal validity

U2 - 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000458

DO - 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000458

M3 - Article

VL - 157

SP - 901

EP - 909

JO - Pain

JF - Pain

SN - 0304-3959

IS - 4

ER -