↓ Skip to main content

Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical Pharmacology and Biomedicine

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical Pharmacology and Biomedicine'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 274 Quality in Non-GxP Research Environment
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 275 Guidelines and Initiatives for Good Research Practice
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 276 Learning from Principles of Evidence-Based Medicine to Optimize Nonclinical Research Practices
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 277 General Principles of Preclinical Study Design
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 278 Resolving the Tension Between Exploration and Confirmation in Preclinical Biomedical Research
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 279 Blinding and Randomization
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 280 Out of Control? Managing Baseline Variability in Experimental Studies with Control Groups
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 281 Quality of Research Tools
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 282 Genetic Background and Sex: Impact on Generalizability of Research Findings in Pharmacology Studies
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 284 Minimum Information and Quality Standards for Conducting, Reporting, and Organizing In Vitro Research.
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 285 Minimum Information in In Vivo Research.
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 286 A Reckless Guide to P-values
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 288 Data Storage
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 290 Publishers’ Responsibilities in Promoting Data Quality and Reproducibility
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 291 Quality Governance in Biomedical Research
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 292 Good Research Practice: Lessons from Animal Care and Use
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 293 Research Collaborations and Quality in Research: Foes or Friends?
  19. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 294 Costs of Implementing Quality in Research Practice
Attention for Chapter 285: Minimum Information in In Vivo Research.
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Minimum Information in In Vivo Research.
Chapter number 285
Book title
Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical Pharmacology and Biomedicine
Published in
Handbook of experimental pharmacology, September 2019
DOI 10.1007/164_2019_285
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-03-033655-4, 978-3-03-033656-1
Authors

Patrizia Voehringer, Janet R. Nicholson

Abstract

Data quality, reproducibility and reliability are a matter of concern in many scientific fields including biomedical research. Robust, reproducible data and scientific rigour form the foundation on which future studies are built and determine the pace of knowledge gain and the time needed to develop new and innovative drugs that provide benefit to patients. Critical to the attainment of this is the precise and transparent reporting of data. In the current chapter, we will describe literature highlighting factors that constitute the minimum information that is needed to be included in the reporting of in vivo research. The main part of the chapter will focus on the minimum information that is essential for reporting in a scientific publication. In addition, we will present a table distinguishing information necessary to be recorded in a laboratory notebook or another form of internal protocols versus information that should be reported in a paper. We will use examples from the behavioural literature, in vivo studies where the use of anaesthetics and analgesics are used and finally ex vivo studies including histological evaluations and biochemical assays.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 27%
Researcher 3 27%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 18%
Engineering 2 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 October 2019.
All research outputs
#18,693,088
of 23,166,665 outputs
Outputs from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
#508
of 650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,682
of 343,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,166,665 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,405 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.