Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25541545›Full record

SynthesisILAR journal2014

The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies.

Rob B M de Vries, Kimberley E Wever, Marc T Avey, Martin L Stephens, Emily S Sena, Marlies Leenaars

Abstract readSystematic 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 88 papers, 34 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 34 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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 34 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. Importance of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Animal Studies: Challenges for Animal-to-Human Translation.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2020
    Pooled it
  15. Initiating factors for the onset of OA: A systematic review of animal bone and cartilage pathology in OA.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2020
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

28 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

6 authors.

Rob B M de Vries
Kimberley E Wever
Marc T Avey
Martin L Stephens
Emily S Sena
Marlies Leenaars

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The question of how animal studies should be designed, conducted, and analyzed remains underexposed in societal debates on animal experimentation. This is not only a scientific but also a moral question. After all, if animal experiments are not appropriately designed, conducted, and analyzed, the results produced are unlikely to be reliable and the animals have in effect been wasted. In this article, we focus on one particular method to address this moral question, namely systematic reviews of previously performed animal experiments. We discuss how the design, conduct, and analysis of future (animal and human) experiments may be optimized through such systematic reviews. In particular, we illustrate how these reviews can help improve the methodological quality of animal experiments, make the choice of an animal model and the translation of animal data to the clinic more evidence-based, and implement the 3Rs. Moreover, we discuss which measures are being taken and which need to be taken in the future to ensure that systematic reviews will actually contribute to optimizing experimental design and thereby to meeting a necessary condition for making the use of animals in these experiments justified.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationResearch DesignAnimalsBiomedical ResearchDisease Models, AnimalHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicModels, Animal3Rsanimal ethicsanimal modelevidence-based preclinical medicineexperimental designmeta-analysissystematic reviewtranslation

Identifiers

PMID25541545
PMCPMC4276599

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.