ArticlePLoS biology2021
Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews.
Article in PLoS biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The NLRP3 inflammasome in osteoarthritis: a systematic review of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine efficacy and underlying mechanisms.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Biological research on mental pain, social pain and other pains not primarily felt in the body: methodological systematic review.The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science · 2025Pooled it
- Screening for in vitro systematic reviews: a comparison of screening methods and training of a machine learning classifier.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2023Pooled it
- Recommendations for robust and reproducible preclinical research in personalised medicine.BMC medicine · 2023Guideline
- What has preclinical systematic review ever done for us?BMJ open science · 2022Pooled it
- Targeting Oxidative and Nitrosative Stress: Mechanistic Insights and Therapeutic Strategies for Radiation-Induced Lung Injury.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Review
- Enhancing the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.BJPsych open · 2025Article
- Antenatal Sildenafil for Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Preclinical Studies.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- What must not be named : Facts, emotions and coping strategies to enhance animal welfare in research.EMBO reports · 2025Article
- Quality, topics, and demographic trends of animal systematic reviews - an umbrella review.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Use and reporting of systematic review methodology in EFSA scientific opinions on animal health and welfare.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Anxiety- and Depressive-Like Behaviors in Rodent Models of Neuropathic Pain.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2024Article
- Value of preclinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric research.Pediatric research · 2024Article
- Timing of SMN replacement therapies in mouse models of spinal muscular atrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Brain communications · 2024Article
- DNA and RNA vaccines against tuberculosis: a scoping review of human and animal studies.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Characteristics of the sources, evaluation, and grading of the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews in public health: A methodological study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Technological advances in preclinical meta-research.BMJ open science · 2021Review
- Protocol for a preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological targeting of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in experimental renal injury.BMJ open science · 2021Article
- Preclinical efficacy of African medicinal plants used in the treatment of snakebite envenoming: a systematic review protocol.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In an effort to better utilize published evidence obtained from animal experiments, systematic reviews of preclinical studies are increasingly more common-along with the methods and tools to appraise them (e.g., SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation [SYRCLE's] risk of bias tool). We performed a cross-sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews (2015-2018) and examined a range of epidemiological characteristics and used a 46-item checklist to assess reporting details. We identified 442 reviews published across 43 countries in 23 different disease domains that used 26 animal species. Reporting of key details to ensure transparency and reproducibility was inconsistent across reviews and within article sections. Items were most completely reported in the title, introduction, and results sections of the reviews, while least reported in the methods and discussion sections. Less than half of reviews reported that a risk of bias assessment for internal and external validity was undertaken, and none reported methods for evaluating construct validity. Our results demonstrate that a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent. Our study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic 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.