SynthesisPloS one2014
Dissemination bias in systematic reviews of animal research: a systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A methodological review with meta-epidemiological analysis of preclinical systematic reviews with meta-analyses.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- What has preclinical systematic review ever done for us?BMJ open science · 2022Pooled it
- Development and uptake of an online systematic review platform: the early years of the CAMARADES Systematic Review Facility (SyRF).BMJ open science · 2021Pooled it
- 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 · 2020Pooled it
- Unconventional Perfusion Flaps in the Experimental Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Methodological and Systematic Errors in Systematic Reviews in Health Domain: A Systematic Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Review
- Value of preclinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric research.Pediatric research · 2024Article
- [Corneal epithelial thickness in keratoconus patients compared to healthy controls].Die Ophthalmologie · 2022Article
- The role of systematic reviews in identifying the limitations of preclinical animal research, 2000-2022: part 2.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2022Article
- Meta-analysis Flavonoids from traditional Chinese herbs for diabetes in rats: a network Meta-analysi.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2022Article
- Effects of selenium supplementation on glycemic control markers in healthy rodents: A systematic review protocol.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Reviewing the animal literature: how to describe and choose between different types of literature reviews.Laboratory animals · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- 3Rs missing: animal research without scientific value is unethical.BMJ open science · 2019Article
- The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.The Milbank quarterly · 2016Article
- Genetically modified animals as models of neurodevelopmental conditions: A review of systematic review reporting quality.Brain and neuroscience advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews of preclinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical research and thus even clinical care. Dissemination bias, selective dissemination of positive or significant results, is one of the major threats to validity in systematic reviews also in the realm of animal studies. We conducted a systematic review to determine the number of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present, to investigate their methodological features especially with respect to assessment of dissemination bias, and to investigate the citation of preclinical systematic reviews on clinical research.
methodsEligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews that summarize in vivo animal experiments whose results could be interpreted as applicable to clinical care. We systematically searched Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 1st January 2009 to 9th January 2013 for eligible systematic reviews without language restrictions. Furthermore we included articles from two previous systematic reviews by Peters et al. and Korevaar et al.
resultsThe literature search and screening process resulted in 512 included full text articles. We found an increasing number of published preclinical systematic reviews over time. The methodological quality of preclinical systematic reviews was low. The majority of preclinical systematic reviews did not assess methodological quality of the included studies (71%), nor did they assess heterogeneity (81%) or dissemination bias (87%). Statistics quantifying the importance of clinical research citing systematic reviews of animal studies showed that clinical studies referred to the preclinical research mainly to justify their study or a future study (76%). DISCUSSION: Preclinical systematic reviews may have an influence on clinical research but their methodological quality frequently remains low. Therefore, systematic reviews of animal research should be critically appraised before translating them to a clinical context.
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.