Introduction to Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

XIONG Wei ¹ , WEI Qiang ¹ , LIU Xue mei ²

1. Department of Urology; West China Hospital; Sichuan University Chengdu 610041 China2. Chinese Evidence Based Medicine Center Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Medicine; Sichuan University; Chengdu 610041; China;

Corresponding author：

Keywords：

Preclinical research; Animal study; Systematic review; Methodology

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

New interventions are rapidly progressing into clinical practice through the preclinical study stage. The animal experiments should be comprehensive and critically evaluated for their pivotal role in this process. To integrate the evidence of animal studies by systematic review throws light on intervention outcomes and could decrease risk of participants in human trials. The methodological weakness of animal studies is easy to highlight but robust methods to synthesize evidence is essential. Here, we discuss some problems in systematic review of animal experiments and whether animal models of diverse species contribute to bias of meta-analysis conclusions.

Citation： XIONG Wei,WEI Qiang,LIU Xue mei. Introduction to Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2005, 05(2): 161-163. doi: Copy

1.	Gunter C. Mouse genome: The mighty mouse[J]. Nat Rev Genet, 2003;4(1): 4-5.
2.	Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, Haig S. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation[J]. BMJ, 2002;324: 474-476.
3.	Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I, on behalf of the Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically (RATS) Group. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans[J]? BMJ, 2004;328: 514-517.
4.	Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis[J]. Eval Health Prof, 2002;25(1): 12-37.
5.	Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test[J]. BMJ, 1997;315(7 109): 629-634.
6.	Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction[J]. N Engl J Med, 1992;327: 248-254.
7.	Hirst GL, Balmain A. Forty years of cancer modelling in the mouse[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2004;40(13): 1 974-1 980.
8.	Macleod MR, O’Collins T, Howells DW, Donnan GA. Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias[J]. Stroke, 2004;35(5): 1 203-1 208.
9.	Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Young B, Jones D, Sutton A. Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. London: Health Development Agency, 2004. Accessible at www.hda.nhs.uk.
10.	Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. QUOROM Group[J]. Br J Surg, 2000;87(11): 1 448-1 454.
11.	Mapstone J, Roberts I, Evans P. Fluid resuscitation strategies: a systematic review of animal trials[J]. J Trauma, 2003;55(3): 571-589.

1. Gunter C. Mouse genome: The mighty mouse[J]. Nat Rev Genet, 2003;4(1): 4-5.
2. Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, Haig S. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation[J]. BMJ, 2002;324: 474-476.
3. Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I, on behalf of the Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically (RATS) Group. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans[J]? BMJ, 2004;328: 514-517.
4. Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis[J]. Eval Health Prof, 2002;25(1): 12-37.
5. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test[J]. BMJ, 1997;315(7 109): 629-634.
6. Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction[J]. N Engl J Med, 1992;327: 248-254.
7. Hirst GL, Balmain A. Forty years of cancer modelling in the mouse[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2004;40(13): 1 974-1 980.
8. Macleod MR, O’Collins T, Howells DW, Donnan GA. Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias[J]. Stroke, 2004;35(5): 1 203-1 208.
9. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Young B, Jones D, Sutton A. Integrative approaches to qualitative and quantitative evidence. London: Health Development Agency, 2004. Accessible at www.hda.nhs.uk.
10. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. QUOROM Group[J]. Br J Surg, 2000;87(11): 1 448-1 454.
11. Mapstone J, Roberts I, Evans P. Fluid resuscitation strategies: a systematic review of animal trials[J]. J Trauma, 2003;55(3): 571-589.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Introduction to Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Format

Content