Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24549183›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism2014

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: why perform them and how to appraise them critically.

Emily S Sena, Gillian L Currie, Sarah K McCann, Malcolm R Macleod, David W Howells

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

Synthesis in Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 134 papers, 52 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
134citing papers in PubMed, 52 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

134 citing papers in PubMed, 52 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. 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. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

74 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

5 authors.

Emily S Sena1] Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK [2] Stroke Division, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Gillian L CurrieDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Sarah K McCannStroke Division, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Malcolm R MacleodDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
David W HowellsStroke Division, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/L000970/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies has become more common, including those of studies describing the modeling of cerebrovascular diseases. Empirical evidence suggests that too many preclinical experiments lack methodological rigor, and this leads to inflated treatment effects. The aim of this review is to describe the concepts of systematic review and meta-analysis and consider how these tools may be used to provide empirical evidence to spur the field to improve the rigor of the conduct and reporting of preclinical research akin to their use in improving the conduct and reporting of randomized controlled trials in clinical research. As with other research domains, systematic reviews are subject to bias. Therefore, we have also suggested guidance for their conduct, reporting, and critical appraisal.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicReview Literature as TopicAnimalsBiasDisease Models, AnimalDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalHumansStrokeTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID24549183
PMCPMC4013765

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.