Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32679706›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020

Levelling the Translational Gap for Animal to Human Efficacy Data.

Guilherme S Ferreira, Désirée H Veening-Griffioen, Wouter P C Boon, Ellen H M Moors, Peter J K van Meer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

5 authors.

Guilherme S FerreiraDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 3512 JE Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5606-6525
Désirée H Veening-GriffioenDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 3512 JE Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wouter P C BoonCopernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Innovation Studies, Utrecht University, 3512 JE Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ellen H M MoorsCopernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Innovation Studies, Utrecht University, 3512 JE Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter J K van MeerDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 3512 JE Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

College ter Beoordeling van Geneesmiddelen No grant number.Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit No grant number.Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport No grant number.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reports of a reproducibility crisis combined with a high attrition rate in the pharmaceutical industry have put animal research increasingly under scrutiny in the past decade. Many researchers and the general public now question whether there is still a justification for conducting animal studies. While criticism of the current modus operandi in preclinical research is certainly warranted, the data on which these discussions are based are often unreliable. Several initiatives to address the internal validity and reporting quality of animal studies (e.g., Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) and Planning Research and Experimental Procedures on Animals: Recommendations for Excellence (PREPARE) guidelines) have been introduced but seldom implemented. As for external validity, progress has been virtually absent. Nonetheless, the selection of optimal animal models of disease may prevent the conducting of clinical trials, based on unreliable preclinical data. Here, we discuss three contributions to tackle the evaluation of the predictive value of animal models of disease themselves. First, we developed the Framework to Identify Models of Disease (FIMD), the first step to standardise the assessment, validation and comparison of disease models. FIMD allows the identification of which aspects of the human disease are replicated in the animals, facilitating the selection of disease models more likely to predict human response. Second, we show an example of how systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide another strategy to discriminate between disease models quantitatively. Third, we explore whether external validity is a factor in animal model selection in the Investigator's Brochure (IB), and we use the IB-derisk tool to integrate preclinical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data in early clinical development. Through these contributions, we show how we can address external validity to evaluate the translatability and scientific value of animal models in drug development. However, while these methods have potential, it is the extent of their adoption by the scientific community that will define their impact. By promoting and adopting high quality study design and reporting, as well as a thorough assessment of the translatability of drug efficacy of animal models of disease, we will have robust data to challenge and improve the current animal research paradigm.

Indexed as

animal modeldrug developmentexternal validityFIMDinvestigator’s brochuremeta-analysissystematic reviewtranslational researchvalidation

Identifiers

PMID32679706
PMCPMC7401509

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.