Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24739383›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2014

Medical relevance of UK-funded non-human primate research published from January 1997 to July 2012.

Edward Moore

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

1 author.

Edward MooreClaremount, 9 Porterfield Road, Inverness IV2 3HW, UK e.moore157@btinternet.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2012, the Bateson Review of research using non-human primates (NHPs) recommended the commissioning of a working group to identify and follow-up the results of UK-funded NHP research of potential benefit for human health (Recommendation 4), but the Medical Research Council (MRC) has postponed implementation of the recommendation. Information on results and potential benefits of NHP research therefore remains unavailable. To fill this gap in knowledge, this study identified all published NHP research studies funded by the MRC, Wellcome Trust and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) from January 1997 to July 2012 and assessed full texts for medical relevance. In total, 284 papers were identified, of which 51 (18%) involved invasive NHP research, compared to 176 (61%) which used NHP tissue and cell lines, indicating a shift in research emphasis from invasive whole animal to cell-based research. Of these studies, 98 (35%) were medically relevant, of which 22 had potential therapeutic or public health applications. The relatively low proportion of medical studies together with the small number of applied studies raises questions over the level of investment in medical research and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer from basic to applied research. Implementation of the Bateson Review's Recommendation 4 would address these questions.

Indexed as

medicalnon-humanprimatepublishedrelevanceresearch

Identifiers

PMID24739383
PMCPMC4093757

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.