1. ¹Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
2. ²Department of Neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
3. ³National Stroke Research Institute, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4. ⁴Department of Medicine, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
5. ⁵Charité Department for Experimental Neurology, Center for Stroke Research Berlin, Berlin, Germany
6. ⁶Stroke Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
7. ⁷Acute Stroke Program, Nuffield Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
8. ⁸Department of Neurology, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands
9. ⁹Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado, USA
10. ¹⁰Cerebrovascular Division, Department of Medicine, National Cardiovascular Center, Osaka, Japan

Correspondence: Richard J Traystman, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. E-mail: Richard.Traystman@ucdenver.edu

Received 14 May 2008; Revised 16 July 2008; Accepted 18 July 2008; Published online 17 September 2008.

Abstract

As a research community, we have failed to show that drugs, which show substantial efficacy in animal models of cerebral ischemia, can also improve outcome in human stroke. Accumulating evidence suggests this may be due, at least in part, to problems in the design, conduct, and reporting of animal experiments which create a systematic bias resulting in the overstatement of neuroprotective efficacy. Here, we set out a series of measures to reduce bias in the design, conduct and reporting of animal experiments modeling human stroke.