The application and challenge of GRADE in systematic reviews of animal studies_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHANG Ting ¹ , WANG Huan ² , XING Dan ³ , CHEN Yaolong ¹ , KUANG Xinying ⁴ , CHEN Hao ⁵ , JIANG Yanbiao ¹ , HU Kaiyan ⁶ ,  MA Bin ¹

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. Arthritis Clinic & Research Center, Peking University People’s Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, 100000, P.R.China;
4. The Chinese University of Hong Kong Jockey Club School of Public Health, Hong Kong, 999077, P.R.China;
5. The Second Clinical College, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210023, P.R.China;
6. School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

MA Bin, Email: kitty_mab@163.com

Keywords：

GRADE; Systematic reviews of animal studies; Application

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201809068

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Grading the evidence of systematic reviews on animal studies will contribute to the improvement in the feasibility of transforming the results of animal studies into clinical trials or clinical practice. High quality evidence from animal studies is more likely to be successfully applied into clinical practice (i.e. more confident). Therefore, the present study will introduce the principles, methods and challenges of the application of GRADE in systematic reviews on animal studies.

Citation： ZHANG Ting, WANG Huan, XING Dan, CHEN Yaolong, KUANG Xinying, CHEN Hao, JIANG Yanbiao, HU Kaiyan, MA Bin. The application and challenge of GRADE in systematic reviews of animal studies. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2019, 19(2): 248-252. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201809068 Copy

1.	Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, et al. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ, 2004, 328(7438): 514-517.
2.	Kroll MW, Anderson KM, Supino CG, et al. Decline in defibrillation thresholds. Pacing & Clinical Electrophysiology Pace, 1993, 16(2): 213-217.
3.	Weed DL, Hursting SD. Biologic plausibility in causal inference: current method and practice. Am J Epidemiol, 1998, 147(5): 415-425.
4.	Weed DL. Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related. Int J Epidemiol, 2000, 29(3): 387-390.
5.	Mignini LE, Latthe PM, Villar J, et al. Mapping the theories of preeclampsia: the role of homocysteine. Obstet Gynecol, 2005, 105(2): 411-425.
6.	Mignini L, Villar J, Khan KS. Mapping the theories of pre-eclampsia: systematic reviews of mechanisms of diseases. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2005, 194(2): 317-321.
7.	Carter RE, Woolson RF. Statistical design considerations for pilot studies transitioning therapies from the bench to the bedside. J Transl Med, 2004, 2(1): 37.
8.	Hooijmans CR, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Progress in using systematic reviews of animal studies to improve translational research. Plos Med, 2013, 10(7): e1001482.
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(7335): 474.
10.	De Vries R, Hooijmans CR, Langendam MW, et al. A protocol format for the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies. Evidence-based Preclinical Medicine, 2015, 2(1): 1-9.
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, van Veggel N, et al. A step-by-step guide to systematically identify all relevant animal studies. Lab Anim, 2012, 46(1): 24-31.
13.	Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, et al. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14(1): 43.
14.	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.
15.	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.
16.	Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ, 2001, 322(7278): 98-101.
17.	Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches the GRADE working group. BMC Health Serv Res, 2004, 4(1): 38.
18.	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(2): 98-104.
19.	Hooijmans CR, de Vries RBM, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, et al. GRADE Working Group. Facilitating healthcare decisions by assessing the certainty in the evidence from preclinical animal studies. PLoS One, 2018, 13(1): e0187271.
20.	Katsamakis S, Slot DE, Van der Sluis LW, et al. Histological responses of the periodontium to MTA: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol, 2013, 40(4): 334-344.
21.	Khatib MN, Shankar A, Kirubakaran R, et al. Effect of ghrelin on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in experimental rat and mice models of heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2015, 10(5): e0126697.
22.	Leung MCP, Yip KK, Lam CT, et al. Acupuncture improves cognitive function: a systematic review. Neural Regen Res, 2013, 8(18): 1673-1684.
23.	Festing MF, Altman DG. Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. Ilar J, 2002, 43(4): 244.
24.	Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(4): 383-394.
25.	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.
26.	Hooijmans CR, Van der Zee CE, Dederen PJ, et al. DHA and cholesterol containing diets influence Alzheimer-like pathology, cognition and cerebral vasculature in APPswe/PS1dE9 mice. Neurobiol Dis, 2009, 33(3): 482-498.
27.	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, 2010, 8(3): e1000344.
28.	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(4): 225-230.
29.	Ter Riet G, Korevaar DA, Leenaars M, et al. Publication bias in laboratory animal research: a survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions. Plos One, 2012, 7(9): e43404.
30.	Lorkeers SJ, Doevendans PA, Chamuleau SA. All preclinical trials should be registered in advance in an online registry. Eur J Clin Invest, 2014, 44(9): 891-892.
31.	Woodruff TJ, Sutton P. The navigation guide systematic review methodology: a rigorous and transparent method for translating environmental health science into better health outcomes. Environ Health Perspect, 2014, 122(10): 1007-1104.

1. Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, et al. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ, 2004, 328(7438): 514-517.
2. Kroll MW, Anderson KM, Supino CG, et al. Decline in defibrillation thresholds. Pacing & Clinical Electrophysiology Pace, 1993, 16(2): 213-217.
3. Weed DL, Hursting SD. Biologic plausibility in causal inference: current method and practice. Am J Epidemiol, 1998, 147(5): 415-425.
4. Weed DL. Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related. Int J Epidemiol, 2000, 29(3): 387-390.
5. Mignini LE, Latthe PM, Villar J, et al. Mapping the theories of preeclampsia: the role of homocysteine. Obstet Gynecol, 2005, 105(2): 411-425.
6. Mignini L, Villar J, Khan KS. Mapping the theories of pre-eclampsia: systematic reviews of mechanisms of diseases. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2005, 194(2): 317-321.
7. Carter RE, Woolson RF. Statistical design considerations for pilot studies transitioning therapies from the bench to the bedside. J Transl Med, 2004, 2(1): 37.
8. Hooijmans CR, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Progress in using systematic reviews of animal studies to improve translational research. Plos Med, 2013, 10(7): e1001482.
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(7335): 474.
10. De Vries R, Hooijmans CR, Langendam MW, et al. A protocol format for the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies. Evidence-based Preclinical Medicine, 2015, 2(1): 1-9.
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, van Veggel N, et al. A step-by-step guide to systematically identify all relevant animal studies. Lab Anim, 2012, 46(1): 24-31.
13. Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, et al. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2014, 14(1): 43.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ, 2001, 322(7278): 98-101.
17. Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches the GRADE working group. BMC Health Serv Res, 2004, 4(1): 38.
18. 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(2): 98-104.
19. Hooijmans CR, de Vries RBM, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, et al. GRADE Working Group. Facilitating healthcare decisions by assessing the certainty in the evidence from preclinical animal studies. PLoS One, 2018, 13(1): e0187271.
20. Katsamakis S, Slot DE, Van der Sluis LW, et al. Histological responses of the periodontium to MTA: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol, 2013, 40(4): 334-344.
21. Khatib MN, Shankar A, Kirubakaran R, et al. Effect of ghrelin on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in experimental rat and mice models of heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2015, 10(5): e0126697.
22. Leung MCP, Yip KK, Lam CT, et al. Acupuncture improves cognitive function: a systematic review. Neural Regen Res, 2013, 8(18): 1673-1684.
23. Festing MF, Altman DG. Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. Ilar J, 2002, 43(4): 244.
24. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol, 2011, 64(4): 383-394.
25. 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.
26. Hooijmans CR, Van der Zee CE, Dederen PJ, et al. DHA and cholesterol containing diets influence Alzheimer-like pathology, cognition and cerebral vasculature in APPswe/PS1dE9 mice. Neurobiol Dis, 2009, 33(3): 482-498.
27. 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, 2010, 8(3): e1000344.
28. 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(4): 225-230.
29. Ter Riet G, Korevaar DA, Leenaars M, et al. Publication bias in laboratory animal research: a survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions. Plos One, 2012, 7(9): e43404.
30. Lorkeers SJ, Doevendans PA, Chamuleau SA. All preclinical trials should be registered in advance in an online registry. Eur J Clin Invest, 2014, 44(9): 891-892.
31. Woodruff TJ, Sutton P. The navigation guide systematic review methodology: a rigorous and transparent method for translating environmental health science into better health outcomes. Environ Health Perspect, 2014, 122(10): 1007-1104.

Previous Article
Interpretation of CONSORT-Equity 2017 extension: a statement for better reporting of health equity in randomised trials

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

The application and challenge of GRADE in systematic reviews of animal studies

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Format

Content