Download icon

Science forum: RIPOSTE: a framework for improving the design and analysis of laboratory-based research

  1. Nicholas G D Masca
  2. Elizabeth M A Hensor
  3. Victoria R Cornelius
  4. Francesca M Buffa
  5. Helen M Marriott
  6. James M Eales
  7. Michael P Messenger
  8. Amy E Anderson
  9. Chris Boot
  10. Catey Bunce
  11. Robert D Goldin
  12. Jessica Harris
  13. Rod F Hinchliffe
  14. Hiba Junaid
  15. Shaun Kingston
  16. Carmen Martin-Ruiz
  17. Christopher P Nelson
  18. Janet Peacock
  19. Paul T Seed
  20. Bethany Shinkins
  21. Karl J Staples
  22. Jamie Toombs
  23. Adam K A Wright
  24. M Dawn Teare  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Leicester, United Kingdom
  2. University of Leeds, United Kingdom
  3. King's College London, United Kingdom
  4. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  5. University of Sheffield, United Kingdom
  6. Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, United Kingdom
  7. University of Newcastle, United Kingdom
  8. Newcastle Hospitals NHS Trust, United Kingdom
  9. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, United Kingdom
  10. Imperial College, United Kingdom
  11. University of Bristol, United Kingdom
  12. Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust,, United Kingdom
  13. Royal London Hospital, United Kingdom
  14. Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, United Kingdom
  15. Newcastle University, United Kingdom
  16. Kings College London, United Kingdom
  17. University of Southampton and NIHR Southampton Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Southampton General Hospital, United Kingdom
  18. University College London, United Kingdom
  19. University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, United Kingdom
Feature Article
  • Cited 18
  • Views 4,797
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2015;4:e05519 doi: 10.7554/eLife.05519

Abstract

Lack of reproducibility is an ongoing problem in some areas of the biomedical sciences. Poor experimental design and a failure to engage with experienced statisticians at key stages in the design and analysis of experiments are two factors that contribute to this problem. The RIPOSTE (Reducing IrreProducibility in labOratory STudiEs) framework has been developed to support early and regular discussions between scientists and statisticians in order to improve the design, conduct and analysis of laboratory studies and, therefore, reduce irreproducibility. The framework is intended for using during the early stages of a research project, when specific questions or hypotheses are proposed. The essential points within the framework are explained and illustrated using three examples (a medical equipment test, a macrophage study and a gene expression study). Sound study design minimises the possibility of bias being introduced into experiments and leads to higher quality research with more reproducible results.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nicholas G D Masca

    Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Elizabeth M A Hensor

    Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Victoria R Cornelius

    Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Francesca M Buffa

    Applied Computational Genomics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Helen M Marriott

    Department of Infection and Immunity, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. James M Eales

    Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Michael P Messenger

    NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-Operative Leeds, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Amy E Anderson

    Musculoskeletal Research Group, Institute of Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Chris Boot

    Newcastle Hospitals NHS Trust, Newcastle, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Catey Bunce

    NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Robert D Goldin

    Centre for Pathology, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Jessica Harris

    Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Rod F Hinchliffe

    Department of Paediatric Haematology, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust,, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Hiba Junaid

    Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Shaun Kingston

    Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Carmen Martin-Ruiz

    Institute for Ageing and Health, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Christopher P Nelson

    Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, NIHR Leicester Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Janet Peacock

    Division of Health and Social Care Research, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Paul T Seed

    Division of Women's Health, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Bethany Shinkins

    Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Karl J Staples

    Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton and NIHR Southampton Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Jamie Toombs

    Department of Molecular Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Adam K A Wright

    Institute of Lung Health, Respiratory Biomedical Unit, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. M Dawn Teare

    Sheffield School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    m.d.teare@sheffield.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Eduardo Franco, McGill University, Canada

Publication history

  1. Received: November 7, 2014
  2. Accepted: May 1, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 7, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 10, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Masca et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,797
    Page views
  • 897
    Downloads
  • 18
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)