ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2014
Medical relevance of UK-funded non-human primate research published from January 1997 to July 2012.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Establishment of an osteoporosis model in tree shrews by bilateral ovariectomy and comprehensive evaluation.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.