Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies: A Survey of Reviews of Basic Research_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

 Luciano E Mignini , Khalid S Khan

Corresponding author：

Luciano E Mignini, Email: k.s.khan@bham.ac.uk

Keywords：

动物研究; 体外研究; 系统评价; 方法学; 质量评价

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

目的　系统评价可作为将基础生命科学研究从实验室转化到人体研究和健康保健措施的工具。对动物研究的系统评价是否系统且不存在偏倚，目前尚不知。
方法　我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、已知系统评价的参考文献（1996~2004）并联系相关专家，至少检索一个对公众开放的数据库全面收集基础科学文献的引文，均未设定语言限制。我们从中纳入那些在动物身上测量实验室参数或在活体动物身上给予治疗以评价疗效研究的系统评价，并将其与在实验室中研究人体或动物组织、细胞系统或器官标本以进一步了解疾病机理体外研究的系统评价进行比较。
结果　动物研究的系统评价通常缺少如定义供检验的假设（9/30，30％）；文献检索不设语言限制（8/30，26.6％）；评价发表偏倚（5/30，16.6％）、研究的真实性（15/30，50％）和异质性（10/30，33.3％）；及使用Meta分析用于定量合成（12/30，40％）等方法学特征。与体外研究的系统评价相比，动物研究的系统评价更多地限定了研究问题（96.6％ vs. 80％，P=0.04）、综合检索了多个数据库（60％ vs. 26.6％，P=0.01）、评价了研究质量（50％ vs. 20％，P=0.01）及探讨了研究异质性（33.3％ vs. 2.2％，P=0.001），因此更少出现偏倚。
结论　在各类系统评价中，方法学质量问题的出现频率似乎存在一定的梯度：虽然与人体临床试验的系统评价相比，整体动物研究的系统评价质量明显较差，但其仍优于体外研究的系统评价。在系统评价动物研究时，有必要更严格。

Citation： Luciano E Mignini,Khalid S Khan. Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies: A Survey of Reviews of Basic Research. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2006, 06(10): 751-755. doi: Copy

1.	Sibbald WJ. An alternative pathway for preclinical research in fluid management. Crit Care, 2000; 4(Suppl 2): S8–S15.
2.	Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ, 2001; 322: 98–101.
3.	Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, et al. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ, 2004; 328: 514–517.
4.	Weed DL, Hursting SD. Biologic plausibility in causal inference: current method and practice. Am J Epidemiol, 1998; 147: 415–425.
5.	Weed DL. Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related. Int J Epidemiol, 2000; 29: 387–390.
6.	Mignini LE, Latthe PM, Villar J, et al. Mapping the theories of preeclampsia: the role of homocysteine. Obstet Gynecol, 2005; 105: 411–425.
7.	Mignini L, Villar J, Khan KS. Mapping the theories of pre-eclampsia: Systematic reviews of mechanisms of diseases. Am J Obstet Gyneco1, 2005 in press.
8.	Carter RE, Woolson RF, et al. Statistical design considerations for pilot studies transitioning therapies from the bench to the bedside. J Transl Med, 2004; 2: 37.
9.	Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, et al. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ, 2002; 324: 474–476.
10.	Horn J, de Haan RJ, Vermeulen M, et al. Nimodipine in animal model experiments of focal cerebral ischemia: a systematic review. Stroke, 2001; 32: 2433–2438.
11.	Mapstone J, Roberts I, Evans P. Fluid resuscitation strategies: a systematic review of animal trials. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care, 2003; 55: 571–589.
12.	Piper RD, Cook DJ, Bone RC, et al. Introducing Critical Appraisal to studies of animal models investigating novel therapies in sepsis. Crit Care Med, 1996; 24: 2059–2070.
13.	Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, et al. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ, 2004; 328: 514–517.
14.	Taioli E, Bonassi S. Methodological issues in pooled analysis of biomarker studies. Mutat Res, 2002; 512:85-92.
15.	Weed DL. Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related. Int J Epidemiol, 2000; 29: 387–390.
16.	Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, et al. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ, 2002; 324: 474–476.
17.	Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, , et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998; 280: 278–280.
18.	Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J, et al. Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ, 2001; 323: 829–832.
19.	Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, et al. A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof, 2002; 25: 116–129.
20.	Clarke M. The QUORUM statement. Lancet, 2000; 355: 756–757.
21.	Linde K, Hondras M, Vickers A, et al. Systematic reviews of complementary therapies – an annotated bibliography. Part 3: homeopathy. BMC Complement Altern Med, 2001; 1: 4.
22.	Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol, 1991; 44: 1271–1278.
23.	Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA, 2000; 283: 2008–2012.
24.	Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA, 1994; 272: 1367–1371.
25.	Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998; 280: 278–280.
26.	. Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J, et al. Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ, 2001; 323: 829–832.
27.	. Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, et al. A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof, 2002; 25: 116–129.
28.	. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998; 280: 278–280.
29.	. Lemon R, Dunnett SB. Surveying the literature from animal experiments. BMJ, 2005; 330: 977–978.
30.	. Khan KS, Mignini L. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: avoidance of bias is objective of systematic reviews, not meta-analysis. BMJ, 2005; 331: 110–111.
31.	. Lemon R, Dunnett SB. Surveying the literature from animal experiments. BMJ, 2005; 330: 977–978.
32.	. Macleod MR, Ebrahim S, Roberts I. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: systematic review and meta-analysis are important contributions. BMJ, 2005; 331: 110.
33.	. Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, et al. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ, 2004; 328: 514–517.
34.	. Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, et al. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ, 2002; 324: 474–476.

1. Sibbald WJ. An alternative pathway for preclinical research in fluid management. Crit Care, 2000; 4(Suppl 2): S8–S15.
2. Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ, 2001; 322: 98–101.
3. Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, et al. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ, 2004; 328: 514–517.
4. Weed DL, Hursting SD. Biologic plausibility in causal inference: current method and practice. Am J Epidemiol, 1998; 147: 415–425.
5. Weed DL. Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related. Int J Epidemiol, 2000; 29: 387–390.
6. Mignini LE, Latthe PM, Villar J, et al. Mapping the theories of preeclampsia: the role of homocysteine. Obstet Gynecol, 2005; 105: 411–425.
7. Mignini L, Villar J, Khan KS. Mapping the theories of pre-eclampsia: Systematic reviews of mechanisms of diseases. Am J Obstet Gyneco1, 2005 in press.
8. Carter RE, Woolson RF, et al. Statistical design considerations for pilot studies transitioning therapies from the bench to the bedside. J Transl Med, 2004; 2: 37.
9. Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, et al. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ, 2002; 324: 474–476.
10. Horn J, de Haan RJ, Vermeulen M, et al. Nimodipine in animal model experiments of focal cerebral ischemia: a systematic review. Stroke, 2001; 32: 2433–2438.
11. Mapstone J, Roberts I, Evans P. Fluid resuscitation strategies: a systematic review of animal trials. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care, 2003; 55: 571–589.
12. Piper RD, Cook DJ, Bone RC, et al. Introducing Critical Appraisal to studies of animal models investigating novel therapies in sepsis. Crit Care Med, 1996; 24: 2059–2070.
13. Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, et al. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ, 2004; 328: 514–517.
14. Taioli E, Bonassi S. Methodological issues in pooled analysis of biomarker studies. Mutat Res, 2002; 512:85-92.
15. Weed DL. Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related. Int J Epidemiol, 2000; 29: 387–390.
16. Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, et al. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ, 2002; 324: 474–476.
17. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, , et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998; 280: 278–280.
18. Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J, et al. Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ, 2001; 323: 829–832.
19. Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, et al. A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof, 2002; 25: 116–129.
20. Clarke M. The QUORUM statement. Lancet, 2000; 355: 756–757.
21. Linde K, Hondras M, Vickers A, et al. Systematic reviews of complementary therapies – an annotated bibliography. Part 3: homeopathy. BMC Complement Altern Med, 2001; 1: 4.
22. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol, 1991; 44: 1271–1278.
23. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA, 2000; 283: 2008–2012.
24. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA, 1994; 272: 1367–1371.
25. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998; 280: 278–280.
26. . Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J, et al. Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ, 2001; 323: 829–832.
27. . Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, et al. A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof, 2002; 25: 116–129.
28. . Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998; 280: 278–280.
29. . Lemon R, Dunnett SB. Surveying the literature from animal experiments. BMJ, 2005; 330: 977–978.
30. . Khan KS, Mignini L. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: avoidance of bias is objective of systematic reviews, not meta-analysis. BMJ, 2005; 331: 110–111.
31. . Lemon R, Dunnett SB. Surveying the literature from animal experiments. BMJ, 2005; 330: 977–978.
32. . Macleod MR, Ebrahim S, Roberts I. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: systematic review and meta-analysis are important contributions. BMJ, 2005; 331: 110.
33. . Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, et al. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ, 2004; 328: 514–517.
34. . Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, et al. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ, 2002; 324: 474–476.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies: A Survey of Reviews of Basic Research

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Format

Content