ArticleLaboratory animals2021
Reviewing the animal literature: how to describe and choose between different types of literature reviews.
Article in Laboratory animals, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Grimace scale, burrowing, and nest building for the assessment of post-surgical pain in mice and rats-A systematic review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Pooled it
- We need less animal research, better animal research, and animal research done for the right reasons.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Quality, topics, and demographic trends of animal systematic reviews - an umbrella review.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- A mapping review of worldwide current and previous cohort research programmes in cats and dogs.PloS one · 2025Review
- A case study of the informative value of risk of bias and reporting quality assessments for systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- A Systematic Review of the Effect of Cystic Fibrosis Treatments on the Nasal Potential Difference Test in Animals and Humans.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Review
- New Heat and Moisture Exchangers for Laryngectomized Patients in Germany: Mixed Methods Study on the Expected Effectiveness.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Development of a Systematic Review Protocol and a Scoping Review of Ultrasound-Induced Immune Effects in Peripheral Tumors.Molecular imaging and biology · 2022Article
- Risk-Based Decision Making: A Systematic Scoping Review of Animal Models and a Pilot Study on the Effects of Sleep Deprivation in Rats.Clocks & sleep · 2021Article
- Knowledge Organization Systems for Systematic Chemical Assessments.Environmental health perspectives · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Before starting any (animal) research project, review of the existing literature is good practice. From both the scientific and the ethical perspective, high-quality literature reviews are essential. Literature reviews have many potential advantages besides synthesising the evidence for a research question. First, they can show if a proposed study has already been performed, preventing redundant research. Second, when planning new experiments, reviews can inform the experimental design, thereby increasing the reliability, relevance and efficiency of the study. Third, reviews may even answer research questions using already available data. Multiple definitions of the term literature review co-exist. In this paper, we describe the different steps in the review process, and the risks and benefits of using various methodologies in each step. We then suggest common terminology for different review types: narrative reviews, mapping reviews, scoping reviews, rapid reviews, systematic reviews and umbrella reviews. We recommend which review to select, depending on the research question and available resources. We believe that improved understanding of review methods and terminology will prevent ambiguity and increase appropriate interpretation of the conclusions of reviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.