Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies; Missing Link in Translational Research?

Background The methodological quality of animal studies is an important factor hampering the translation of results from animal studies to a clinical setting. Systematic reviews of animal studies may provide a suitable method to assess and thereby improve their methodological quality. Objectives The aims of this study were: 1) to evaluate the risk of bias assessment in animal-based systematic reviews, and 2) to study the internal validity of the primary animal studies included in these systematic reviews. Data Sources We systematically searched Pubmed and Embase for SRs of preclinical animal studies published between 2005 and 2012. Results A total of 91 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed in 48 (52.7%) of these 91 systematic reviews. Thirty-three (36.3%) SRs provided sufficient information to evaluate the internal validity of the included studies. Of the evaluated primary studies, 24.6% was randomized, 14.6% reported blinding of the investigator/caretaker, 23.9% blinded the outcome assessment, and 23.1% reported drop-outs. Conclusions To improve the translation of animal data to clinical practice, systematic reviews of animal studies are worthwhile, but the internal validity of primary animal studies needs to be improved. Furthermore, risk of bias should be assessed by systematic reviews of animal studies to provide insight into the reliability of the available evidence.

[1]  M. Ritskes-Hoitinga,et al.  A Gold Standard Publication Checklist to Improve the Quality of Animal Studies, to Fully Integrate the Three Rs, and to Make Systematic Reviews More Feasible , 2010, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[2]  T. Woodruff,et al.  Instruments for Assessing Risk of Bias and Other Methodological Criteria of Published Animal Studies: A Systematic Review , 2013, Environmental health perspectives.

[3]  Katie Lidster,et al.  Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies , 2014, PLoS biology.

[4]  Kennon Heard,et al.  Emergency medicine animal research: does use of randomization and blinding affect the results? , 2003, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[5]  Ulrich Dirnagl,et al.  Reprint: Good Laboratory Practice: Preventing Introduction of Bias at the Bench , 2009, Stroke.

[6]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Reporting : The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research , 2010 .

[7]  Alex J Sutton,et al.  A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Animal Experiments with Guidelines for Reporting , 2006, Journal of environmental science and health. Part. B, Pesticides, food contaminants, and agricultural wastes.

[8]  L. Mignini,et al.  Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research , 2006, BMC medical research methodology.

[9]  Carlijn R Hooijmans,et al.  Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed , 2010, Laboratory animals.

[10]  Carlijn R Hooijmans,et al.  Updated version of the Embase search filter for animal studies. , 2014, Laboratory animals.

[11]  L. Hooft,et al.  Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: Publication bias in laboratory animal experiments , 2011, Laboratory animals.

[12]  Carlijn R Hooijmans,et al.  A search filter for increasing the retrieval of animal studies in Embase , 2011, Laboratory animals.

[13]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Threats to Validity in the Design and Conduct of Preclinical Efficacy Studies: A Systematic Review of Guidelines for In Vivo Animal Experiments , 2013, PLoS medicine.

[14]  Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable.  Recommendations for standards regarding preclinical neuroprotective and restorative drug development. , 1999, Stroke.

[15]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals , 2009, PloS one.

[16]  G. Sivyer,et al.  Letter to the Editor , 2014, Dermatology practical & conceptual.

[17]  M. Ritskes-Hoitinga,et al.  Progress in Using Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies to Improve Translational Research , 2013, PLoS medicine.