ArticleBMC medical ethics2015
Can animal data translate to innovations necessary for a new era of patient-centred and individualised healthcare? Bias in preclinical animal research.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of the make-up and properties of in vitro models of the healthy and diseased blood-brain barrier.Nature biomedical engineering · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of Type and Dose of Exercise on Neuropathic Pain After Experimental Sciatic Nerve Injury: A Preclinical Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The journal of pain · 2023Pooled it
- Critical evaluation of challenges and future use of animals in experimentation for biomedical research.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacology · 2016Pooled it
- Prioritizing neuroactive ligands using motif-guided virtual discovery and zebrafish profiling.npj drug discovery · 2026Article
- Prioritizing Neuroactive Ligands Using Motif-Guided Virtual Discovery and Zebrafish Profiling.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Six decades of evidence: biological factors predominate among reported reasons for clinical drug failure:NAM journal · 2026Article
- Developing more inclusive approaches to animal research and patient involvement.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Article
- A scoping review of ethical decisions and decision tools for experimental animal protocols.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Unwanted disorders and xenogeneic graft-versus-host disease in experimental immunodeficient mice: How to evaluate and how to report.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2025Review
- Breaking barriers in trauma research: A narrative review of opportunities to leverage veterinary trauma for accelerated translation to clinical solutions for pets and people.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Review
- Biomarkers and 3D models predicting response to immune checkpoint blockade in head and neck cancer (Review).International journal of oncology · 2022Review
- The role of systematic reviews in identifying the limitations of preclinical animal research, 2000-2022: part 1.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2022Article
- Hemostatic efficacy of two topical adjunctive hemostats in a porcine spleen biopsy punch model of moderate bleeding.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2021Article
- Systematic review of guidelines for internal validity in the design, conduct and analysis of preclinical biomedical experiments involving laboratory animals.BMJ open science · 2020Article
- Investigation of the curative effects of palm vitamin E tocotrienols on autoimmune arthritis disease in vivo.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Animal to human translation: a systematic scoping review of reported concordance rates.Journal of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Epigenetics Changes Nothing: What a New Scientific Field Does and Does Not Mean for Ethics and Social Justice.Public health ethics · 2018Article
- Expanding the 3R principles: More rigour and transparency in research using animals.EMBO reports · 2017Article
- Publication bias in animal research presented at the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference.BMC research notes · 2017Article
- The ethics of animal research: a survey of the public and scientists in North America.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
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
backgroundThe public and healthcare workers have a high expectation of animal research which they perceive as necessary to predict the safety and efficacy of drugs before testing in clinical trials. However, the expectation is not always realised and there is evidence that the research often fails to stand up to scientific scrutiny and its 'predictive value' is either weak or absent. DISCUSSION: Problems with the use of animals as models of humans arise from a variety of biases and systemic failures including: 1) bias and poor practice in research methodology and data analysis; 2) lack of transparency in scientific assessment and regulation of the research; 3) long-term denial of weaknesses in cross-species translation; 4) profit-driven motives overriding patient interests; 5) lack of accountability of expenditure on animal research; 6) reductionist-materialism in science which tends to dictate scientific inquiry and control the direction of funding in biomedical research. Bias in animal research needs to be addressed before medical research and healthcare decision-making can be more evidence-based. Research funding may be misdirected on studying 'disease mechanisms' in animals that cannot be replicated outside tightly controlled laboratory conditions, and without sufficient critical evaluation animal research may divert attention away from avenues of research that hold promise for human health. The potential for harm to patients and trial volunteers from reliance on biased animal data(1) requires measures to improve its conduct, regulation and analysis. This article draws attention to a few of the many forms of bias in animal research that have come to light in the last decade and offers a strategy incorporating ten recommendations stated at the end of each section on bias. The proposals need development through open debate and subsequent rigorous implementation so that reviewers may determine the value of animal research to human health. The 10Rs + are protected by a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License and therefore may be 'shared, remixed or built on, even commercially, so long as attributed by giving appropriate credit with a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.'
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.