Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31107871›Full record

SynthesisPLoS biology2019

Animal models of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A machine-assisted systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gillian L Currie, Helena N Angel-Scott, Lesley Colvin, Fala Cramond, Kaitlyn Hair, Laila Khandoker, Jing Liao, Malcolm Macleod, Sarah K McCann, Rosie Morland and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

19 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Gillian L CurrieCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3052-2929
Helena N Angel-ScottPain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7109-920X
Lesley ColvinDepartment of Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1563-8600
Fala CramondPain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Kaitlyn HairCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0180-7343
Laila KhandokerPain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jing LiaoCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Malcolm MacleodCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9187-9839
Sarah K McCannCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4737-2349
Rosie MorlandPain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1881-0461
Nicki SherrattCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Robert StewartCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Ezgi Tanriver-AyderCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9653-2540
James ThomasEPPI-Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4805-4190
Qianying WangCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Rachel WodarskiPain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1254-9418
Ran XiongPain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Andrew S C RicePain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Emily S SenaCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3282-8502
University of Edinburgh · GBImperial College London · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Dundee · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N015665/1National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/K000659/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of research using animal models of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). We systematically searched 5 online databases in September 2012 and updated the search in November 2015 using machine learning and text mining to reduce the screening for inclusion workload and improve accuracy. For each comparison, we calculated a standardised mean difference (SMD) effect size, and then combined effects in a random-effects meta-analysis. We assessed the impact of study design factors and reporting of measures to reduce risks of bias. We present power analyses for the most frequently reported behavioural tests; 337 publications were included. Most studies (84%) used male animals only. The most frequently reported outcome measure was evoked limb withdrawal in response to mechanical monofilaments. There was modest reporting of measures to reduce risks of bias. The number of animals required to obtain 80% power with a significance level of 0.05 varied substantially across behavioural tests. In this comprehensive summary of the use of animal models of CIPN, we have identified areas in which the value of preclinical CIPN studies might be increased. Using both sexes of animals in the modelling of CIPN, ensuring that outcome measures align with those most relevant in the clinic, and the animal's pain contextualised ethology will likely improve external validity. Measures to reduce risk of bias should be employed to increase the internal validity of studies. Different outcome measures have different statistical power, and this can refine our approaches in the modelling of CIPN.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryAnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsBehavior, AnimalDisease Models, AnimalDrug Administration RoutesOutcome Assessment, Health CarePeripheral Nervous System DiseasesPublication BiasPublicationsRisk FactorsAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID31107871
PMCPMC6544332
OpenAlexW2945365067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.