ReviewInternational journal of medical sciences2013
Systematic reviews of animal models: methodology versus epistemology.
Review in International journal of medical sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
79 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effect of tanshinones on cognitive impairments in animal models of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Emerging Nanotheranostics for 5-Fluorouracil in Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review on Efficacy, Safety, and Diagnostic Capability.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The impact of ginsenosides on cognitive deficits in experimental animal studies of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Effect of exercise on fluoride metabolism in adult humans: a pilot study.Scientific reports · 2015Trial
- Trial
- Modeling Risk Group 4 virus infection and antiviral treatment in microfluidic lung organ-on-chips in maximum containment laboratories.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Single-cell RNA sequencing profiles drug activity within spatially engineered 3D cultures.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Cross-modal integration of metabolomics and cardiac functionality captures dynamic metabotoxic effects of doxorubicin in engineered heart tissues.Stem cell reports · 2026Article
- Neurophysiological differences between dexmedetomidine sedation and natural sleep across the rodent lifespan: implications for aging and perioperative brain health.Anesthesiology and perioperative science · 2026Article
- Biofabrication of a 3D human skeletal muscle microenvironment to study the early steps of fibrosis.Materials today. Bio · 2025Article
- Organs on chips: fundamentals, bioengineering and applications.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2025Review
- An update on mammalian and non-mammalian animal models for biomarker development in neurodegenerative disorders.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2025Review
- Thermal imaging in biomedical research: a non-invasive technology for animal models.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- Animal models of neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus: deciphering the complexity and guiding therapeutic development.Autoimmunity · 2024Review
- Zebrafish as a model organism for virus disease research: Current status and future directions.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Human Intestinal Organoids and Microphysiological Systems for Modeling Radiotoxicity and Assessing Radioprotective Agents.Cancers · 2023Review
- Trigeminal nerve stimulation: a current state-of-the-art review.Bioelectronic medicine · 2023Review
- Review
- Review
19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews are currently favored methods of evaluating research in order to reach conclusions regarding medical practice. The need for such reviews is necessitated by the fact that no research is perfect and experts are prone to bias. By combining many studies that fulfill specific criteria, one hopes that the strengths can be multiplied and thus reliable conclusions attained. Potential flaws in this process include the assumptions that underlie the research under examination. If the assumptions, or axioms, upon which the research studies are based, are untenable either scientifically or logically, then the results must be highly suspect regardless of the otherwise high quality of the studies or the systematic reviews. We outline recent criticisms of animal-based research, namely that animal models are failing to predict human responses. It is this failure that is purportedly being corrected via systematic reviews. We then examine the assumption that animal models can predict human outcomes to perturbations such as disease or drugs, even under the best of circumstances. We examine the use of animal models in light of empirical evidence comparing human outcomes to those from animal models, complexity theory, and evolutionary biology. We conclude that even if legitimate criticisms of animal models were addressed, through standardization of protocols and systematic reviews, the animal model would still fail as a predictive modality for human response to drugs and disease. Therefore, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal-based research are poor tools for attempting to reach conclusions regarding human interventions.
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.