Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29324741›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Facilitating healthcare decisions by assessing the certainty in the evidence from preclinical animal studies.

Carlijn R Hooijmans, Rob B M de Vries, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, Maroeska M Rovers, Mariska M Leeflang, Joanna IntHout, Kimberley E Wever, Lotty Hooft, Hans de Beer, Ton Kuijpers and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 42 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 42 pooled it
13.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

94 citing papers in PubMed, 42 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Efficacy and possible mechanism ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026
    Pooled it
  10. 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

34 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

20 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Carlijn R HooijmansSystematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rob B M de VriesSystematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Merel Ritskes-HoitingaSystematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maroeska M RoversSystematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mariska M LeeflangDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joanna IntHoutSystematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Kimberley E WeverSystematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Lotty HooftCochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hans de BeerGuide2Guidance, Urecht, The Netherlands.
Ton KuijpersDutch College of General Practitioners, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Malcolm R MacleodCenter for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Emily S SenaCenter for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Gerben Ter RietDepartment of General Practice, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rebecca L MorganDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kristina A ThayerDivision of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., United States of America.
Andrew A RooneyDivision of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., United States of America.
Gordon H GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Holger J SchünemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Miranda W LangendamDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9038-3209
GRADE Working Group
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLImpact · CANational Institutes of Health · USUniversity of Edinburgh · GBDutch College of General Practitioners · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

Integrated Health Assessments for the National Toxicology ProgramZIAES103317 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ROONEY, ANDREW · 2016 to 2019
$24.4M
National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/L000970/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laboratory animal studies are used in a wide range of human health related research areas, such as basic biomedical research, drug research, experimental surgery and environmental health. The results of these studies can be used to inform decisions regarding clinical research in humans, for example the decision to proceed to clinical trials. If the research question relates to potential harms with no expectation of benefit (e.g., toxicology), studies in experimental animals may provide the only relevant or controlled data and directly inform clinical management decisions. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important tools to provide robust and informative evidence summaries of these animal studies. Rating how certain we are about the evidence could provide important information about the translational probability of findings in experimental animal studies to clinical practice and probably improve it. Evidence summaries and certainty in the evidence ratings could also be used (1) to support selection of interventions with best therapeutic potential to be tested in clinical trials, (2) to justify a regulatory decision limiting human exposure (to drug or toxin), or to (3) support decisions on the utility of further animal experiments. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is the most widely used framework to rate the certainty in the evidence and strength of health care recommendations. Here we present how the GRADE approach could be used to rate the certainty in the evidence of preclinical animal studies in the context of therapeutic interventions. We also discuss the methodological challenges that we identified, and for which further work is needed. Examples are defining the importance of consistency within and across animal species and using GRADE's indirectness domain as a tool to predict translation from animal models to humans.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDelivery of Health CareEvidence-Based MedicineModels, AnimalAnimalsBiomedical ResearchHumans

Identifiers

PMID29324741
PMCPMC5764235
OpenAlexW2784327403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.