Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: A survey of reviews of basic research

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 6, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Mignini, Luciano E ^a   Khan, Khalid S ^b  

^a Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales   (Argentina)

^b BIRMINGHAM CHILDREN S HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; BIOMEDICINE; CITATION ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; EMBASE; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LABORATORY TEST; MEDICAL LIABILITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY; PUBLISHING; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ANIMAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE MODEL; HUMAN; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION; ANIMALS; BENCHMARKING; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; HUMANS; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 33645834076     PISSN: 14712288     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-10     Document Type: Review

References (34)

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, Bracken MB, Roberts I: 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, Kilby MD, Carroli G, Khan KS: 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 Gynecol 2005 in press.
8. Carter RE, Woolson RF: 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, Haig S: 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, Luiten PG, Limburg M: 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, Sibbald WJ: 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, Bracken MB, Roberts I: 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 metaanalysis and causal inference methods are related. Int J Epidemiol 2000, 29:387-390.
16. 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. BMJ 2002, 324:474-476.
17. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, 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, Gotzsche PC, Hadhazy V, Herxheimer A, et al.: Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ 2001, 323:829-832.
19. Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, Pham B, Tugwell P: 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, ter Riet G, Melchart D: 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, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, 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, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, 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, Gotzsche PC, Hadhazy V, Herxheimer A, et al.: Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ 2001, 323:829-832.
27. Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, Pham B, Tugwell P: 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, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, 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, Bracken MB, Roberts I: Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ 2004, 328:514-517.
34. 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. BMJ 2002, 324:474-476.