Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32727637›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2020

Importance of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Animal Studies: Challenges for Animal-to-Human Translation.

Zahra Bahadoran, Parvin Mirmiran, Khosrow Kashfi, Asghar Ghasemi

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Hypoglycemic activity ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024
    Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Zahra BahadoranNutrition and Endocrine Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Parvin MirmiranDepartment of Clinical Nutrition and Human Dietetics, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Khosrow KashfiDepartment of Molecular, Cellular and Biomedical Sciences, Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education, City University of New York School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Asghar GhasemiEndocrine Physiology Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran;, Email: Ghasemi@endocrine.ac.ir.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Results of animal experiments are used for understanding the pathophysiology of diseases, assessing safety and efficacy of newly developed drugs, and monitoring environmental health hazards among others. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal data are important tools to condense animal evidence and translate the data into practical clinical applications. Such studies are conducted to explore heterogeneity, to generate new hypotheses about pathophysiology and treatment, to design new clinical trial modalities, and to test the efficacy and the safety of the various interventions. Here, we provide an overview regarding the importance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal data and discuss common challenges and their potential solutions. Current evidence highlights various problems and challenges that surround these issues, including lack of generalizability of data obtained from animal models, failure in translating data obtained from animals to humans, poor experimental design and the reporting of the animal studies, heterogeneity of the data collected, and methodologic weaknesses of animal systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies can catalyze translational processes more effectively if they focus on a well-defined hypothesis along with addressing clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, publication bias, heterogeneity of the data, and a coherent and well-balanced assessment of studies' quality.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationResearch DesignTranslational Research, BiomedicalAnimalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID32727637
PMCPMC7479780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.