Systematic development of a standard process for systematic reviews of animal experimental studies_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

XU Jiake ^1,2 , ZHAO Lulu ^1,2 , LIAO Xuliang ¹ , WANG Huan ¹ , YAN qiong ¹ , WU Kainan ¹ , XIE Ye ^1,2 , ZHAO Mengna ¹ , WEI Chenru ¹ , HOU Haozhong ¹ , XIAO Zheng ³ , ZHAO Fei ⁴ , CHEN Hongmei ⁵ , LIU Yali ^1,6 , JIANG Yanbiao ¹ ,  MA Bin ^1,6

1. Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R China;
2. The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R China;
3. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, MOE Virtual Research Center of Evidence-based Medicine at Zunyi Medical College, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical College, Zunyi, 563003, P.R China;
4. School of Medicine, Northwest Minzu University, Lanzhou, 730030, P.R China;
5. Physiology and psychology department, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R China;
6. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R China;

Corresponding author：

MA Bin, Email: mab@lzu.edu.cn

Keywords：

Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Animal study

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201707133

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

At present, systematic reviews of animal experimental studies has become a new trend and an important way to synthesize the results of animal experimental studies, improve the conducting and reporting quality of animal experimental studies and provide references for the furture clinical research. However, there are many problems in the design and implementation process of published systematic reviews of animal experimental studies. Therefore, it is important to design a scientific and standard practical process to improve the quality of systematic reviews of animal experimental studies. In this paper, we developed a standard process for systematic reviews of animal experimental studies, in order to improve the quality of systematic reviews of animal experimental studies.

Citation： XU Jiake, ZHAO Lulu, LIAO Xuliang, WANG Huan, YAN qiong, WU Kainan, XIE Ye, ZHAO Mengna, WEI Chenru, HOU Haozhong, XIAO Zheng, ZHAO Fei, CHEN Hongmei, LIU Yali, JIANG Yanbiao, MA Bin. Systematic development of a standard process for systematic reviews of animal experimental studies. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2017, 17(11): 1357-1364. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201707133 Copy

1.	杨克虎, 主编. 系统评价指导手册. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2010: 1-342.
2.	Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, et al. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ, 2007, 334(7586): 197.
3.	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(7335): 474-476.
4.	Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, et al. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ, 2004, 328(7438): 514-517.
5.	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: ED000078.
6.	Mignini LE, Khan KS. Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2006, 6: 10.
7.	Hooijmans CR, Inthout J, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, et al. Meta-analyses of animal studies: an introduction of a valuable instrument to further improve healthcare. ILAR J, 2014, 55(3): 418-426.
8.	Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, Egan KJ, et al. Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: a practical guide. J Neurosci Methods, 2014, 221(15): 92-102.
9.	de Vries RB, Hooijmans CR, Langendam MW, et al. A protocol format for the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies. Evid Based Preclin Med, 2015, 2(1): 1-9.
10.	de Vries RB, Hooijmans CR, Alice T, et al. A search filter for increasing the retrieval of animal studies in Embase. Lab Anim, 2011, 45(4): 268-270.
11.	Hooijmans CR, Tillema A, Leenaars M, et al. Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed. Lab Anim, 2010, 44(3): 170-175.
12.	Leenaars M, Hooijmans CR, Veggel NV, et al. A step-by-step guide to systematically identify all relevant animal studies. Lab Anim, 2012, 46(1): 24.
13.	Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, et al. SYRCLE’s risk ofbias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14: 43.
14.	Peters JL, Sutton A J, 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(7): 1245.
15.	Mapstone J, Roberts I, Evans P. Fluid resuscitation strategies: A systematic review of animal trials. J Trauma, 2003, 55(3): 571-589.
16.	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(11): e7824.
17.	Hb VDW, Sena ES, Donnan GA, et al. Hypothermia in animal models of acute ischaemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain, 2007, 130(Pt 12): 3063-3074.
18.	陈匡阳, 屈丽娜, 胡芳, 等. 动物实验系统评价/Meta 分析检索策略报告情况调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(3): 348-353.
19.	Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011[2015-12-07]. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org.
20.	Hooijmans CR, Pasker-de Jong PC, de Vries RB, et al. The effects of long-term omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cognition and Alzheimer’s pathology in animal models of Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis, 2012, 28(1): 191-209.
21.	Krauth D, Woodruff TJ, Bero L. Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect, 2013, 121(9): 985-992.
22.	Sena E, van der Worp HB, Howells D, et al. How can we improve the preclinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends Neurosci, 2007, 3D(9): 433-439.
23.	Wever KE, Menting TP, Rovers M, et al. Ischemic preconditioning in the animal kidney, a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One, 2012, 7(2): e32296.
24.	Thayer K, Rooney A, Boyles A, et al. Draft protocol for systematic review to evaluate the evidence for an association between bisphenol A (BPA) exposure and obesity. In National Toxicology Program. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013: 1-71.
25.	陈匡阳, 马彬, 王亚楠, 等. SYRCLE 动物实验偏倚风险评估工具简介. 中国循证医学杂志, 2014, 14(10): 1281-1285.
26.	Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM Statement. Br J Surg, 1999, 87(11): 1448-1454.
27.	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(15): 2008-2012.
28.	Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, et al. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. Vet Clin Pathol, 2012, 41(1): 27-31.

1. 杨克虎, 主编. 系统评价指导手册. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2010: 1-342.
2. Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, et al. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ, 2007, 334(7586): 197.
3. 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(7335): 474-476.
4. Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, et al. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ, 2004, 328(7438): 514-517.
5. 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: ED000078.
6. Mignini LE, Khan KS. Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2006, 6: 10.
7. Hooijmans CR, Inthout J, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, et al. Meta-analyses of animal studies: an introduction of a valuable instrument to further improve healthcare. ILAR J, 2014, 55(3): 418-426.
8. Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, Egan KJ, et al. Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: a practical guide. J Neurosci Methods, 2014, 221(15): 92-102.
9. de Vries RB, Hooijmans CR, Langendam MW, et al. A protocol format for the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies. Evid Based Preclin Med, 2015, 2(1): 1-9.
10. de Vries RB, Hooijmans CR, Alice T, et al. A search filter for increasing the retrieval of animal studies in Embase. Lab Anim, 2011, 45(4): 268-270.
11. Hooijmans CR, Tillema A, Leenaars M, et al. Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed. Lab Anim, 2010, 44(3): 170-175.
12. Leenaars M, Hooijmans CR, Veggel NV, et al. A step-by-step guide to systematically identify all relevant animal studies. Lab Anim, 2012, 46(1): 24.
13. Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, et al. SYRCLE’s risk ofbias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14: 43.
14. Peters JL, Sutton A J, 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(7): 1245.
15. Mapstone J, Roberts I, Evans P. Fluid resuscitation strategies: A systematic review of animal trials. J Trauma, 2003, 55(3): 571-589.
16. 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(11): e7824.
17. Hb VDW, Sena ES, Donnan GA, et al. Hypothermia in animal models of acute ischaemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain, 2007, 130(Pt 12): 3063-3074.
18. 陈匡阳, 屈丽娜, 胡芳, 等. 动物实验系统评价/Meta 分析检索策略报告情况调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2016, 16(3): 348-353.
19. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011[2015-12-07]. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org.
20. Hooijmans CR, Pasker-de Jong PC, de Vries RB, et al. The effects of long-term omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cognition and Alzheimer’s pathology in animal models of Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis, 2012, 28(1): 191-209.
21. Krauth D, Woodruff TJ, Bero L. Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect, 2013, 121(9): 985-992.
22. Sena E, van der Worp HB, Howells D, et al. How can we improve the preclinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends Neurosci, 2007, 3D(9): 433-439.
23. Wever KE, Menting TP, Rovers M, et al. Ischemic preconditioning in the animal kidney, a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One, 2012, 7(2): e32296.
24. Thayer K, Rooney A, Boyles A, et al. Draft protocol for systematic review to evaluate the evidence for an association between bisphenol A (BPA) exposure and obesity. In National Toxicology Program. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013: 1-71.
25. 陈匡阳, 马彬, 王亚楠, 等. SYRCLE 动物实验偏倚风险评估工具简介. 中国循证医学杂志, 2014, 14(10): 1281-1285.
26. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM Statement. Br J Surg, 1999, 87(11): 1448-1454.
27. 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(15): 2008-2012.
28. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, et al. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. Vet Clin Pathol, 2012, 41(1): 27-31.

Previous Article
How to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, extremes or quartiles?

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Systematic development of a standard process for systematic reviews of animal experimental studies

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Format

Content