ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2011
Translational neuropharmacology and the appropriate and effective use of animal models.
Article in British journal of pharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Overview of Animal Models Related to Schizophrenia.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2019Review
- Non-Clinical Contribution to Clinical Trials during Lead Optimization Phase.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Found in translation? Commentary on a BJP themed issue about animal models in neuropsychiatry research.British journal of pharmacology · 2014Article
- Qualification of LSP1-2111 as a Brain Penetrant Group III Metabotropic Glutamate Receptor Orthosteric Agonist.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2014Article
- Translational neuropharmacology: the use of human isolated gastrointestinal tissues.British journal of pharmacology · 2013Review
- Lost in translation: preclinical studies on 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine provide information on mechanisms of action, but do not allow accurate prediction of adverse events in humans.British journal of pharmacology · 2012Review
- From basic to clinical neuropharmacology: targetophilia or pharmacodynamics?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This issue of the British Journal of Pharmacology is dedicated to reviews of the major animal models used in neuropharmacology to examine drugs for both neurological and psychiatric conditions. Almost all major conditions are reviewed. In general, regulatory authorities require evidence for the efficacy of novel compounds in appropriate animal models. However, the failure of many compounds in clinical trials following clear demonstration of efficacy in animal models has called into question both the value of the models and the discovery process in general. These matters are expertly reviewed in this issue and proposals for better models outlined. In this editorial, we further suggest that more attention be made to incorporate pharmacokinetic knowledge into the studies (quantitative pharmacology). We also suggest that more attention be made to ensure that full methodological details are published and recommend that journals should be more amenable to publishing negative data. Finally, we propose that new approaches must be used in drug discovery so that preclinical studies become more reflective of the clinical situation, and studies using animal models mimic the anticipated design of studies to be performed in humans, as closely as possible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.