Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23771496›Full record

SynthesisEnvironmental health perspectives2013

Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review.

David Krauth, Tracey J Woodruff, Lisa Bero

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

Synthesis in Environmental health perspectives, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 39 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 39 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

84 citing papers in PubMed, 39 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. Pooled it
  9. Yohimbine as a pharmacological probe for alcohol research: a systematic review of rodent and human studies.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Freeze-dried plasma for major trauma - Systematic review and meta-analysis.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2021
    Pooled it
  16. Evaluation of Khat (Catha edulis) Use as a Risk Factor of Cancer: A Systematic Review.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2020
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David KrauthDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA.
Tracey J Woodruff
Lisa Bero

Funding

The UCSF Pregnancy Exposures to Environmental Chemicals (PEEC) Children's CenterP01ES022841 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI WOODRUFF, TRACEY J. · 2013 to 2018
$3.9M
Measuring Design, Reporting and Funding Bias in Nonclinical ResearchR21ES021028 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI BERO, LISA A · 2011 to 2012
$425k
NIEHS NIH HHS P01 ES022841NIEHS NIH HHS R21 ES021028NIEHS NIH HHS R21ES021028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResults from animal toxicology studies are critical to evaluating the potential harm from exposure to environmental chemicals or the safety of drugs prior to human testing. However, there is significant debate about how to evaluate the methodology and potential biases of the animal studies. There is no agreed-upon approach, and a systematic evaluation of current best practices is lacking.

objectiveWe performed a systematic review to identify and evaluate instruments for assessing the risk of bias and/or other methodological criteria of animal studies.

methodWe searched Medline (January 1966-November 2011) to identify all relevant articles. We extracted data on risk of bias criteria (e.g., randomization, blinding, allocation concealment) and other study design features included in each assessment instrument. DISCUSSION: Thirty distinct instruments were identified, with the total number of assessed risk of bias, methodological, and/or reporting criteria ranging from 2 to 25. The most common criteria assessed were randomization (25/30, 83%), investigator blinding (23/30, 77%), and sample size calculation (18/30, 60%). In general, authors failed to empirically justify why these or other criteria were included. Nearly all (28/30, 93%) of the instruments have not been rigorously tested for validity or reliability.

conclusionOur review highlights a number of risk of bias assessment criteria that have been empirically tested for animal research, including randomization, concealment of allocation, blinding, and accounting for all animals. In addition, there is a need for empirically testing additional methodological criteria and assessing the validity and reliability of a standard risk of bias assessment instrument.

Indexed as

BiasAnimalsDouble-Blind MethodMEDLINERandom AllocationResearch DesignRisk AssessmentSample SizeToxicity Tests

Identifiers

PMID23771496
PMCPMC3764080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.