Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33964349›Full record

ArticleRegulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP2021

Developing a database of systematic reviews of animal studies.

Miranda W Langendam, Kristen Magnuson, Ashley R Williams, Vickie R Walker, Kembra L Howdeshell, Andrew A Rooney, Carlijn R Hooijmans

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Miranda W LangendamAmsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, the Netherlands.
Kristen MagnusonICF, Durham, NC, USA.
Ashley R WilliamsICF, Durham, NC, USA.
Vickie R WalkerDivision of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Kembra L HowdeshellDivision of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Andrew A RooneyDivision of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Carlijn R HooijmansSystematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: Carlijn.Hooijmans@radboudumc.nl.

Funding

Integrated Health Assessments for the Division of the National Toxicology ProgramZICES103317 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ROONEY, ANDREW · 2020 to 2021
$9.6M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIC ES103317NIEHS NIH HHS HHSN273201600015C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SRs) are common practice in clinical and public health research, but less common in non-human animal research. Systematic reviews of animal studies can be valuable to inform clinical research, to evaluate the need for further animal experiments on a given topic, and to assess the hazard of an environmental exposure in the evaluation of toxicological studies. In the last 10 years, there has been an increase in the number of SRs of animal research, as well as several publications with detailed guidance on how to perform high-quality systematic reviews of experimental animal studies. In order to evaluate current analytical approaches used in SRs of animal studies, easily identify all systematic reviews on a specific topic, and subsequently the original animal studies and their results and promote awareness and understanding of these emerging approaches, we compiled a database of SRs of animal studies. The database was developed using a rigorous, systematic approach and covers a broad range of research fields: preclinical research, toxicology, environmental health, and veterinary medicine. The database currently includes 3113 SRs of animal studies (search date June 2019). In addition to bibliographical information, data on whether or not a risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis were conducted were extracted. For future users, the search features of the database provide users with a platform to identify and select SRs with a particular characteristic for export to Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel. From there, users may perform additional data extraction to meet their research needs. The database is freely available at www.Mendeley.com (link). The database provides methodologists a comprehensive source that can be used to explore and advance the current methodology applied to SRs of animal studies, and can help researchers to easily identify all systematic reviews on a specific topic, and subsequently the original animal studies and their results and avoid duplication and unnecessary animal research.

Indexed as

Animals, LaboratoryDatabases, FactualSystematic Reviews as TopicAnimalsBiasHumansPublic HealthAnimal studiesDatabaseSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID33964349
PMCPMC11364211

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.