Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25541544›Full record

SynthesisILAR journal2014

Meta-analyses of animal studies: an introduction of a valuable instrument to further improve healthcare.

Carlijn R Hooijmans, Joanna IntHout, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, Maroeska M Rovers

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in ILAR journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 52 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing 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

89 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. Peri-implant bone regeneration in pigs.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024
    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

29 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

4 authors.

Carlijn R Hooijmans
Joanna IntHout
Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga
Maroeska M Rovers

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In research aimed at improving human health care, animal studies still play a crucial role, despite political and scientific efforts to reduce preclinical experimentation in laboratory animals. In animal studies, the results and their interpretation are not always straightforward, as no single study is executed perfectly in all steps. There are several possible sources of bias, and many animal studies are replicates of studies conducted previously. Use of meta-analysis to combine the results of studies may lead to more reliable conclusions and a reduction of unnecessary duplication of animal studies. In addition, due to the more exploratory nature of animal studies as compared to clinical trials, meta-analyses of animal studies have greater potential in exploring possible sources of heterogeneity. There is an abundance of literature on how to perform meta-analyses on clinical data. Animal studies, however, differ from clinical studies in some aspects, such as the diversity of animal species studied, experimental design, and study characteristics. In this paper, we will discuss the main principles and practices for meta-analyses of experimental animal studies.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationMeta-Analysis as TopicAnimalsHumansModels, Animalexperimental animal studiesguidancemeta-analysisprinciples and practicessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID25541544
PMCPMC4276598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.