SynthesiseLife2015
A meta-analysis of threats to valid clinical inference in preclinical research of sunitinib.
Synthesis in eLife, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of small extracellular vesicle interventions in wound healing and skin regeneration: A systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies.Theranostics · 2022Pooled it
- Mitochondrial transplantation therapy for ischemia reperfusion injury: a systematic review of animal and human studies.Journal of translational medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Design and Reporting of Targeted Anticancer Preclinical Studies: A Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies Investigating Sorafenib Antitumor Efficacy.Cancer research · 2016Pooled it
- Review
- Severity Classification of Laboratory Animal Procedures in Two Belgian Academic Institutions.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- 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
- Article
- Can prospective systematic reviews of animal studies improve clinical translation?Journal of translational medicine · 2020Article
- The p value wars (again).European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Article
- Assessing the Completeness of Reporting in Preclinical Oncolytic Virus Therapy Studies.Molecular therapy oncolytics · 2019Article
- Is it possible to overcome issues of external validity in preclinical animal research? Why most animal models are bound to fail.Journal of translational medicine · 2018Review
- Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions.PloS one · 2018Article
- Consider drug efficacy before first-in-human trials.Nature · 2017Article
- Is Participation in Cancer Phase I Trials Really Therapeutic?Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017Review
- Sex-Divergent Clinical Outcomes and Precision Medicine: An Important New Role for Institutional Review Boards and Research Ethics Committees.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2017Review
- Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor.PLoS biology · 2016Article
- Developing translational medicine professionals: the Marie Skłodowska-Curie action model.Journal of translational medicine · 2016Article
- Sunitinib Possible Sex-Divergent Therapeutic Outcomes.Clinical drug investigation · 2016Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Poor study methodology leads to biased measurement of treatment effects in preclinical research. We used available sunitinib preclinical studies to evaluate relationships between study design and experimental tumor volume effect sizes. We identified published animal efficacy experiments where sunitinib monotherapy was tested for effects on tumor volume. Effect sizes were extracted alongside experimental design elements addressing threats to valid clinical inference. Reported use of practices to address internal validity threats was limited, with no experiments using blinded outcome assessment. Most malignancies were tested in one model only, raising concerns about external validity. We calculate a 45% overestimate of effect size across all malignancies due to potential publication bias. Pooled effect sizes for specific malignancies did not show apparent relationships with effect sizes in clinical trials, and we were unable to detect dose-response relationships. Design and reporting standards represent an opportunity for improving clinical inference.
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.