Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22037056›Full record

SynthesisLaboratory animals2012

A step-by-step guide to systematically identify all relevant animal studies.

Marlies Leenaars, Carlijn R Hooijmans, Nieky van Veggel, Gerben ter Riet, Mariska Leeflang, Lotty Hooft, Gert Jan van der Wilt, Alice Tillema, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Laboratory animals, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 42 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 42 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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 42 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Peri-implant bone regeneration in pigs.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Modular (universal) CAR-T platformsFrontiers in immunology · 2024
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Effect and mechanisms of resveratrol in animal models of ischemic stroke: A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2023
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Marlies Leenaars3R Research Centre, Central Animal Laboratory, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. M.Leenaars@cdl.umcn.nl
Carlijn R Hooijmans
Nieky van Veggel
Gerben ter Riet
Mariska Leeflang
Lotty Hooft
Gert Jan van der Wilt
Alice Tillema
Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Before starting a new animal experiment, thorough analysis of previously performed experiments is essential from a scientific as well as from an ethical point of view. The method that is most suitable to carry out such a thorough analysis of the literature is a systematic review (SR). An essential first step in an SR is to search and find all potentially relevant studies. It is important to include all available evidence in an SR to minimize bias and reduce hampered interpretation of experimental outcomes. Despite the recent development of search filters to find animal studies in PubMed and EMBASE, searching for all available animal studies remains a challenge. Available guidelines from the clinical field cannot be copied directly to the situation within animal research, and although there are plenty of books and courses on searching the literature, there is no compact guide available to search and find relevant animal studies. Therefore, in order to facilitate a structured, thorough and transparent search for animal studies (in both preclinical and fundamental science), an easy-to-use, step-by-step guide was prepared and optimized using feedback from scientists in the field of animal experimentation. The step-by-step guide will assist scientists in performing a comprehensive literature search and, consequently, improve the scientific quality of the resulting review and prevent unnecessary animal use in the future.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationDatabases, BibliographicAnimalsAnimals, LaboratoryBiomedical ResearchInformation Storage and RetrievalResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicSearch Engine

Identifiers

PMID22037056
PMCPMC3265183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.