Systematic reviews of animal studies – Report of an international symposium

Objective: The Symposium on Animal Systematic Reviews held 24 May 2022, sought to bring organisations working on animal literature searching and systematic reviews together into the same virtual space for introductions and discussion. Background: Groups working on animal research synthesis are often siloed into preclinical, veterinary, and One Health settings. This symposium sought to define commonalities and differences in methodologies, resources, and philosophies and to discuss future needs. Methods: The 3-hour virtual symposium for veterinarians, researchers, and information specialists began with introductions by panelists from organisations involved in searching the literature for animal studies and conducting systematic reviews. This was followed by a panel discussion and question and answer period. Results: Panelists identified a need to ensure planning and accurate description of primary animal studies as a precursor to quality systematic reviews. They acknowledged and discussed differences in evidence synthesis expectations and tools based on the type of review, the types of studies available on the topic, and the focus on preclinical, veterinary, or One Health topics. Conclusion: The need to increase the speed and quality of evidence reviews, and to automate updates, requires investing in the development of both skilled teams and platforms. The symposium provided a chance to identify existing resources, define challenges, and note gaps unique to systematic reviews of animal studies. Application: This symposium acts as a baseline for ongoing discussions centred on improving the culture and pipeline for evidence syntheses of animal studies that inform decision-making.

[1]  Emily A. Hennessy,et al.  The evidence synthesis and meta-analysis in R conference (ESMARConf): levelling the playing field of conference accessibility and equitability , 2022, Systematic Reviews.

[2]  Bersani C.,et al.  Roadmap for actions on artificial intelligence for evidence management in risk assessment , 2022, EFSA Supporting Publications.

[3]  S. Chamuleau,et al.  Preregistration of animal research protocols: development and 3-year overview of preclinicaltrials.eu , 2022, BMJ Open Science.

[4]  P. Pound,et al.  The impact of conducting preclinical systematic reviews on researchers and their research: A mixed method case study , 2021, PloS one.

[5]  C. Whitty,et al.  Formal and informal science advice in emergencies: COVID-19 in the UK , 2021, Interface Focus.

[6]  Gillian L. Currie,et al.  Building a Systematic Online Living Evidence Summary of COVID-19 Research , 2021, Journal of EAHIL.

[7]  M. Macleod,et al.  The Automated Systematic Search Deduplicator (ASySD): a rapid, open-source, interoperable tool to remove duplicate citations in biomedical systematic reviews , 2021, bioRxiv.

[8]  D. Moher,et al.  PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews , 2021, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[9]  Jing Liao,et al.  Development and uptake of an online systematic review platform: the early years of the CAMARADES Systematic Review Facility (SyRF) , 2021, BMJ Open Science.

[10]  J. Coates,et al.  A CTSA One Health Alliance (COHA) survey of clinical trial infrastructure in North American veterinary institutions , 2021, BMC Veterinary Research.

[11]  N R Haddaway,et al.  citationchaser: An R package and Shiny app for forward and backward citations chasing in academic searching , 2021 .

[12]  E. Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews , 2020, BMJ.

[13]  Ulrich Dirnagl,et al.  The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research* , 2020, BMC Veterinary Research.

[14]  D. Grindlay,et al.  Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in Veterinary Medicine: Applying Evidence in Clinical Practice , 2020, Frontiers in Veterinary Science.

[15]  Margie Wallin,et al.  Improving the translation of search strategies using the Polyglot Search Translator: a randomized controlled trial , 2020, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[16]  ClinicalTrials.gov , 2020, Definitions.

[17]  E. D. Murphey The AVMA Animal Health Studies Database. , 2019, Topics in companion animal medicine.

[18]  M. Greiner,et al.  Refining animal research: The Animal Study Registry , 2019, PLoS biology.

[19]  M. Baker Animal registries aim to reduce bias , 2019, Nature.

[20]  Anthea Sutton,et al.  Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. , 2019, Health information and libraries journal.

[21]  Eliza M. Grames,et al.  An automated approach to identifying search terms for systematic reviews using keyword co‐occurrence networks , 2019, Methods in Ecology and Evolution.

[22]  Jing Liao,et al.  Machine learning algorithms for systematic review: reducing workload in a preclinical review of animal studies and reducing human screening error , 2019, Systematic Reviews.

[23]  Rcvs Knowledge,et al.  RCVS knowledge , 2018, BSAVA Companion.

[24]  Vijay Kalivarapu,et al.  The study design elements employed by researchers in preclinical animal experiments from two research domains and implications for automation of systematic reviews , 2018, PloS one.

[25]  Mourad Ouzzani,et al.  Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) , 2018, Systematic Reviews.

[26]  D. Grindlay,et al.  Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine , 2017, BMC Veterinary Research.

[27]  T. Brattelid,et al.  PREPARE: guidelines for planning animal research and testing , 2017, Laboratory animals.

[28]  M. O’Haire,et al.  Rat tickling: A systematic review of applications, outcomes, and moderators , 2017, PloS one.

[29]  M. Macleod,et al.  Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Interleukin-1 Receptor Antagonist in Animal Models of Stroke: an Update , 2016, Translational Stroke Research.

[30]  Meggan E Craft,et al.  “One Health” or Three? Publication Silos Among the One Health Disciplines , 2016, PLoS biology.

[31]  J. Sargeant,et al.  Research synthesis in veterinary science: Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analysis. , 2015, Veterinary journal.

[32]  M. Stephens,et al.  The Usefulness of Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments for the Design of Preclinical and Clinical Studies , 2014, ILAR journal.

[33]  Gregory K. Youngen,et al.  Exploring the Veterinary Literature: A Bibliometric Methodology for Identifying Interdisciplinary and Collaborative Publications , 2014, Coll. Res. Libr..

[34]  A M O'Connor,et al.  Introduction to Systematic Reviews in Animal Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine , 2014, Zoonoses and public health.

[35]  M. Rovers,et al.  SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[36]  Gillian L. Currie,et al.  Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: why perform them and how to appraise them critically , 2014, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[37]  M. Rovers,et al.  Ischemic Preconditioning in the Animal Kidney, a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2012, PloS one.

[38]  D. Moher,et al.  The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[39]  J. Clarke,et al.  What is a systematic review? , 2011, Evidence Based Nursing.

[40]  Emily S Sena,et al.  Systematic review and stratified meta-analysis of the efficacy of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist in animal models of stroke. , 2009, Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association.

[41]  A. Booth,et al.  A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[42]  Trish Groves,et al.  Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[43]  Jung-Han Kim,et al.  Stereotactic Core-Needle Biopsy of Non-Mass Calcifications: Outcome and Accuracy at Long-Term Follow-Up , 2003, Korean journal of radiology.

[44]  Rachel S Dean,et al.  Searching the veterinary literature: a comparison of the coverage of veterinary journals by nine bibliographic databases. , 2012, Journal of veterinary medical education.