SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Principles and Practice of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

  • 2936 Accesses

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analysis of clinical studies are well established as the highest level of evidence-based medicine. The concept of summarising evidence from preclinical or animal studies has evolved over the past decade. This process is important for providing animal researchers with a unique framework to study, collate, plan, design and report preclinical research, thereby adding to its translational potential. Furthermore, the concept of preclinical SRs is important to consolidate a humane and cost-effective approach to animal experiments. This chapter highlights the evolution, establishment of preclinical systematic review centre (SYRCLE), importance of the 3Rs, limitations of animal research, benefits of preclinical SRs, method of conducting and reporting the SR, interpreting results and evaluating the level of evidence using GRADE and finally optimising the ‘laboratory benchtop’ research to reach its highest translational potential at the ‘patient’s bedside.’

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (Brazil)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (Brazil)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (Brazil)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (Brazil)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, et al. Importance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies: challenges for animal-to-human translation. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci. 2020. https://doi.org/10.30802/aalas-jaalas-19-000139.

  • Charan J, Kantharia ND. How to calculate sample size in animal studies? J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2013;4:303–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane. Cochrane-REWARD prizes for reducing waste: 2017 winners. http://www.cochrane.org/news/cochrane-reward-prizes-reducing-waste-2017-winners. Accessed 11 Aug 2020.

  • de Vries RB, Wever KE, Avey MT, et al. The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies. ILAR J. 2014;55:427–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira GS, Veening-Griffioen DH, Boon WPC, et al. Levelling the translational gap for animal to human efficacy data. Animals (Basel). 2020;10:1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:380–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooijmans CR, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Progress in using systematic reviews of animal studies to improve translational research. PLoS Med. 2013;10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooijmans CR, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. 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. Altern Lab Anim. 2010;38:167–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/The-ethics-of-research-involving-animals-full-report.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2020.

  • https://3rs.ccac.ca/documents/en/WC8_Declaration_of_Montreal_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 18th July 2020.

  • Hyman SE. Revolution stalled. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4: 155–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalra PR, Moon JC, Coats AJ. Do results of the ENABLE (Endothelin Antagonist Bosentan for Lowering Cardiac Events in Heart Failure) study spell the end for non-selective endothelin antagonism in heart failure? Int J Cardiol. 2002;85:195–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashangura R, Sena ES, Young T, Garner P. Effects of MVA85A vaccine on tuberculosis challenge in animals: SR. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44:1970–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilkenny C, Browne W, Cuthill IC, et al. NC3Rs Reporting Guidelines Working Group. Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines. Br J Pharmacol. 2010; 160:1577–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, et al. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e7824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korevaar DA, Hooft L, ter Riet G. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim. 2011;45:225–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, et al. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:248–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee DS, Nguyen QT, Lapointe N, et al. Meta-analysis of the effects of endothelin receptor blockade on survival in experimental heart failure. J Cardiac Fail. 2003;9:368–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leenaars CH, Kouwenaar C, Stafleu FR, et al. Animal to human translation: a systematic sco** review of reported concordance rates. J Transl Med. 2019;17:223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas C, Criens-Poublon LJ, Cockrell CT, et al. Wound healing in cell studies and animal model experiments by low level laser therapy; were clinical studies justified? ASR Lasers Med Sci. 2002;17:110–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Macleod MR, van der Worp HB, Sena ES, et al. Evidence for the efficacy of NXY-059 in experimental focal cerebral ischaemia is confounded by study quality. Stroke. 2008;39:2824–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mapstone J, Roberts I, Evans P. Fluid resuscitation strategies: a SR of animal trials. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2003;55:571–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Collins VE, Macleod MR, Donnan GA, et al. 1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke. Ann Neurol. 2006;59:467–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, et al. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2007;334:197.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B. 2006;41:1245–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, et al. Reviewing animal trials systematically (RATS) Group: Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ. 2004; 328:514–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pound P, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Is it possible to overcome issues of external validity in preclinical animal research? Why most animal models are bound to fail. J Transl Med. 2018;16:304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pound P, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Can prospective systematic reviews of animal studies improve clinical translation? J Transl Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-02205-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ritskes‐Hoitinga M, Leenaars M, Avey M et al. Systematic reviews of preclinical animal studies can make significant contributions to health care and more transparent translational medicine. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 3 Art. No.: ED000078. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ed000078.

  • Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, et al. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a SR of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ. 2002;324:474–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell WMS, Burch RL. The principles of humane experimental technique. London, UK: Methuen; 1959. p. 238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandercock P, Roberts I. Systematic reviews of animal experiments. Lancet. 2002;360:586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sena ES, Briscoe CL, Howells DW, et al. Factors affecting the apparent efficacy and safety of tissue plasminogen activator in thrombotic occlusion models of stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2010;30:1905–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PM, et al. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol. 2010b;8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sena ES, Currie GL, McCann SK, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: why perform them and how to appraise them critically. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2014;34:737–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symonds ME, Budge H. Comprehensive literature search for animal studies may have saved STRIDER trial. BMJ. 2018;362:k4007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tameris MD, Hatherill M, Landry BS, et al. Safety and efficacy of MVA85A, a new tuberculosis vaccine, in infants previously vaccinated with BCG: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial. Lancet. 2013;381:1021–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van Drongelen J, Hooijmans CR, Lotgering FK, et al. Adaptive changes of mesenteric arteries in pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2012;303:H639–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Luijk J, Bakker B, Rovers MM, et al. Systematic reviews of animal studies; missing link in translational research? PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e8998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei D, Tang K, Wang Q, et al. The use of GRADE approach in systematic reviews of animal studies. J Evid Based Med. 2016;9:98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neonatal Directorate, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, WA, 6008, Australia

    Gayatri Athalye-Jape

  2. School of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

    Gayatri Athalye-Jape

Authors
  1. Gayatri Athalye-Jape
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gayatri Athalye-Jape .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia

    Sanjay Patole

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Athalye-Jape, G. (2021). Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies. In: Patole, S. (eds) Principles and Practice of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71921-0_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation