Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14988196›Full record

ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2004

Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?

Pandora Pound, Shah Ebrahim, Peter Sandercock, Michael B Bracken, Ian Roberts, Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically (RATS) Group

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 166 papers, 34 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
166citing papers in PubMed, 34 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

166 citing papers in PubMed, 34 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Importance of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Animal Studies: Challenges for Animal-to-Human Translation.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2020
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. A systematic review of animal and clinical studies on the use of scaffolds for urethral repair.Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Medical sciences = Hua zhong ke ji da xue xue bao. Yi xue Ying De wen ban = Huazhong keji daxue xuebao. Yixue Yingdewen ban · 2016
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

106 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Pandora PoundDepartment of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR.
Shah Ebrahim
Peter Sandercock
Michael B Bracken
Ian Roberts
Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically (RATS) Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationAnimalsBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicHumansQuality ControlReview Literature as TopicBiomedical and Behavioral Research

Identifiers

PMID14988196
PMCPMC351856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.