AI Article Synopsis

  • Audits are seen as a potential solution to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of biomedical research, but they are resource-intensive and often perceived as invasive.
  • The study explored various audit approaches in a university neuroscience setting with around 100 participants to identify effective methods for improving research quality.
  • Recommendations and resources for implementing these audits were provided, including templates for study design and workflows to enhance the auditing process's effectiveness.

Article Abstract

How much can we rely on whether what was reported in a study was actually done? Systematic and independent examination of records, documents and processes through audits are a central element of quality management systems. In the context of current concerns about the robustness and reproducibility of experimental biomedical research audits have been suggested as a remedy a number of times. However, audits are resource intense and time consuming, and due to their very nature may be perceived as inquisition. Consequently, there is very little experience or literature on auditing and assessments in the complex preclinical biomedical research environment. To gain some insight into which audit approaches might best suit biomedical research in academia, in this study we have applied a number of them in a typical academic neuroscience environment consisting of twelve research groups with about 100 researchers, students and technicians, utilizing the full gamut of state-of-the-art methodology. Several types of assessments and internal as well as external audits (including the novel format of a peer audit) were systematically explored by a team of quality management specialists. An experimental design template was developed (and is provided here) that takes into account and mitigates difficulties, risks and systematic errors that may occur during the course of a study. All audits were performed according to a pre-defined workflow developed by us. Outcomes were assessed qualitatively. We asked for feedback from participating employees in every final discussion of an audit and documented this in the audit reports. Based on these reports follow-up audits were improved. We conclude that several realistic options for auditing exist which have the potential to improve preclinical biomedical research in academia, and have listed specific recommendations regarding their benefits and provided practical resources for their implementation (e.g. study design and audit templates, audit workflow).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7561085PMC
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240719PLOS

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

quality management
8
preclinical biomedical
8
biomedical academia
8
audits
6
audit
6
study
5
improving quality
4
quality preclinical
4
preclinical academic
4
academic auditing
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!