Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35047676›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open science2018

Protocol for a systematic review of guidelines for rigour in the design, conduct and analysis of biomedical experiments involving laboratory animals.

Jan Vollert, Esther Schenker, Malcolm Macleod, Anton Bespalov, Hanno Wuerbel, Martin Christian Michel, Ulrich Dirnagl, Heidrun Potschka, Kimberley E Wever, Thomas Steckler and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Why Animal Experiments Are Still Indispensable in Bone Research: A Statement by the European Calcified Tissue Society.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors.

Jan VollertPain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0733-5201
Esther SchenkerInstitut de recherches, Servier, Croissy-sur-Seine, France.
Malcolm MacleodCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9187-9839
Anton BespalovPartnership for Assessment and Accreditation of Scientific Practice, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hanno WuerbelDivision of Animal Welfare, VPH Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Martin Christian MichelPartnership for Assessment and Accreditation of Scientific Practice, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4161-8467
Ulrich DirnaglDepartment of Experimental Neurology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0755-6119
Heidrun PotschkaInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy, Ludwig-Maximilians- University, Munich, Germany.
Kimberley E WeverDepartment for Health Evidence, Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation, Nijmegen Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3635-3660
Thomas StecklerJanssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9927-5121
Bruce AltevogtPfizer Inc, New York City, New York, USA.
Andrew S C RicePain Research, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
EQIPD WP3 study group

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N015665/1National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/L000970/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWithin the last years, there has been growing awareness of the negative repercussions of unstandardized planning, conduct and reporting of preclinical and biomedical research. Several initiatives have set the aim of increasing validity and reliability in reporting of studies and publications, and publishers have formed similar groups. Additionally, several groups of experts across the biomedical spectrum have published experience and opinion-based guidelines and guidance on potential standardized reporting. While all these guidelines cover reporting of experiments, an important step prior to this should be rigours planning and conduction of studies. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and harmonize existing experimental design, conduct and analysis guidelines relating to internal validity and reproducibility of preclinical animal research. The review will also identify literature describing risks of bias pertaining to the design, conduct and analysis of preclinical biomedical research. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science will be searched systematically to identify guidelines published in English language in peer-reviewed journals before January 2018 (box 1). All articles or systematic reviews in English language that describe or review guidelines on the internal validity and reproducibility of animal studies will be included. Google search for guidelines published on the websites of major funders and professional organisations can be found in (Box 2). SCREENING AND ANNOTATION: Unique references will be screened in two phases: screening for eligibility based on title and abstract, followed by screening for definitive inclusion based on full text. Screening will be performed in SyRF (http://syrf.org.uk). Each reference will be randomly presented to two independent reviewers. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by additional screening of the reference by a third, senior researcher. DATA MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING: All data, including extracted text and guidelines, will be stored in the SyRF platform. Elements of the included guidelines will be identified using a standardized extraction form. Reporting will follow the PRISMA guidelines as far as applicable.

Indexed as

BMJOSdrug evaluation, preclinicalprotocols & guidelines

Identifiers

PMID35047676
PMCPMC8749326

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.