Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31220983›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of toxicology

Integration of Consortia Recommendations for Justification of Animal Use Within Current and Future Drug Development Paradigms.

Helen Prior, Thomas Monticello, Virginie Boulifard, Frank R Brennan, Ian Kimber

Abstract readConference Proceedings
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of toxicology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

5 authors.

Helen Prior1 National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8700-7226
Thomas Monticello2 Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Virginie Boulifard3 Ipsen Innovation, Les Ulis, France.
Frank R Brennan4 UCB Pharma, Slough, United Kingdom.
Ian Kimber5 University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries continually review the requirements for, and relevance of, safety assessment strategies. Various industry consortia are currently discussing and reviewing data on a range of topics with respect to regulatory toxicology programs. These consortia are charged with critical evaluation of data and the identification of opportunities to promote best practice and to introduce improved approaches to safety assessment. Such improvements may include enhanced predictivity, more efficient ways of working, and opportunities for promoting and implementing the 3Rs (replacement, refinement, or reduction). As each consortium is considering a distinct question, individual outputs and recommendations could be perceived to be conflicting. However, a common theme embraced by the consortia represented here is exploration of the most appropriate use of animals for the safety assessment of new medicinal products. This short review summarizes presentations and discussions from a symposium describing the work of four industry consortia and considers whether their recommendations can be aligned into realistic approaches to improve future toxicology testing strategies, highlighting justification for the appropriate use of different animal species and opportunities for reductions in animal use without compromising patient safety.

Indexed as

Animal Testing AlternativesDrug DevelopmentAnimalsAntibodies, MonoclonalDatabases, FactualHumansRisk AssessmentToxicity TestsAntibodies, Monoclonal3Rsdrug developmentsafety assessment

Identifiers

PMID31220983
PMCPMC6659164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.