Why Are So Many Epidemiology Associations Inflated or Wrong? Does Poorly Conducted Animal Research Suggest Implausible Hypotheses?

Annals of Epidemiology

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 220-224

  Bracken, Michael B ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Animal Studies; Bias; Epidemiology Methods; Randomized Trials; Research Synthesis; Systematic Reviews

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HYPOTHESIS; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION; ANIMALS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 59649113468     PISSN: 10472797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.11.006     Document Type: Note

References (59)

1. Taubes G. Epidemiology faces its limits. Science 269 (1995) 164-169
2. Bracken M.B. Alarums false, alarums real: challenges and threats to the future of epidemiology. Ann Epidemiol 8 (1998) 79-82
3. Davey Smith G., and Ebrahim S. Epidemiology-is it time to call it a day?. Int J Epidemiol 30 (2001) 1-11
4. von Elm E., and Egger M. The scandal of poor epidemiological research. BMJ 329 (2004) 868-869
5. Shapiro S. Looking to the 21st century: have we learned from our mistakes, or are we doomed to compound them?. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 13 (2004) 257-265
6. Bonovas S., Filioussi K., and Sitaras N.M. Statin use and the risk of prostate cancer: a metaanalysis of 6 randomized clinical trials and 13 observational studies. Int J Cancer 123 (2008) 899-904
7. Furlan A.D., Tomlinson G., Jadad A.A., and Bombardier C. Methodological quality and homogeneity influenced agreement between randomized trials and nonrandomized studies of the same intervention for back pain. J Clin Epidemiol 61 (2008) 209-231
8. Martinez M.E., Marshall J.R., and Giovannucci E. Diet and cancer prevention: the roles of observation and experimentation. Nat Rev Cancer (2008 Aug 7) [Epub ahead of print]
9. Rosano G.M., Vitale C., and Lello S. Postmenopausal hormone therapy: lessons from observational and randomized studies. Endocrine 24 (2004) 251-254
10. Wolfe F., Michaud K., and Dewitt E.M. Why results of clinical trials and observational studies of antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy differ: methodological and interpretive issues. Ann Rheum Dis 63 Suppl 2 (2004) ii13-ii17
11. Ioannidis J.P. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 19 (2008) 640-648
12. Kraft P. Curses-winner's and otherwise-in genetic epidemiology. Epidemiology 19 (2008) 649-651 discussion 657-668
13. Senn S. Transposed conditionals, shrinkage, and direct and indirect unbiasedness. Epidemiology 19 (2008) 652-654 discussion 657-658
14. Willett W.C. The search for truth must go beyond statistics. Epidemiology 19 (2008) 655-656 discussion 657-658
15. Ioannidis J.P. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2 (2005) e124
16. Ibn Sina from the James Lind Library. Available at: http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/. Accessed August 2008.
17. Gold H. The proper study of mankind is the man. Am J Med 12 (1952) 619-620
18. Lasagna L. The diseases drugs cause. Perspect Biol Med 7 (1964) 457-470
19. Brodie B.B. Symposium on clinical drug evaluation and human pharmacology. VI. Difficulties in extrapolating data on metabolism of drugs from animal to man. Clin Pharmacol Ther 3 (1962) 374-380
20. Florey H.W., and Abraham E.P. The work on penicillin at Oxford. J Hist Med Allied Sci. 6 (1951) 302-317
21. Nau H. Teratogenicity of isotretinoin revisited: species variation and the role of all-trans-retinoic acid. J Am Acad Dermatol 45 (2001) S183-S187
22. Needs C.J., and Brooks P.M. Antirheumatic medication in pregnancy. Br J Rheumatol 24 (1985) 282-290
23. Lepper E.R., Smith N.F., Cox M.C., Scripture C.D., and Figg W.D. Thalidomide metabolism and hydrolysis: mechanisms and implications. Curr Drug Metab 7 (2006) 677-685
24. Stebbings R., Findlay L., Edwards C., Eastwood D., Bird C., North D., et al. "Cytokine Storm" in the Phase I trial of monoclonal antibody TGN1412: better understanding the causes to improve preclinical testing of immunotherapeutics. J Immunol 179 (2007) 3325-3331
25. Hackam D.G., and Redelmeier D.A. Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. JAMA 296 (2006) 1731-1732
26. Perel P., Roberts I., Sena E., Wheble P., Briscoe C., Sandercock P., et al. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ 334 (2007) 197
27. Roberts I., Kwan I., Evans P., and Haig S. Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ 324 (2002) 474-476
28. Corpet D.E., and Pierre F. How good are rodent models of carcinogenesis in predicting efficacy in humans? A systematic review and meta-analysis of colon chemoprevention in rats, mice and men. Eur J Cancer 41 (2005) 1911-1922
29. Corpet D.E., and Pierre F. Point: From animal models to prevention of colon cancer. Systematic review of chemoprevention in min mice and choice of the model system. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12 (2003) 391-400
30. America's War on Carcinogens: reassessing the use of animal tests to predict human cancer risk (2006), American Council for Science and Health
31. Sandercock P., and Roberts I. Systematic reviews of animal experiments. Lancet 360 (2002) 586
32. Pound P., Ebrahim S., Sandercock P., Bracken M.B., and Roberts I. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?. BMJ 328 (2004) 514-517
33. Mignini L.E., and Khan K.S. Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research. BMC Med Res Methodol 6 (2006) 10
34. Peters J.L., Sutton A.J., Jones D.R., Rushton L., and Abrams K.R. A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B 41 (2006) 1245-1258
35. Lang I.A., Galloway T.S., Scarlett A., Henley W.E., Depledge M., Wallace R.B., et al. Association of urinary bisphenol A concentration with medical disorders and laboratory abnormalities in adults. JAMA 300 (2008) 1303-1310
36. Goodman J.E., McConnell E.E., Sipes I.G., Witorsch R.J., Slayton T.M., Yu C.J., et al. An updated weight of the evidence evaluation of reproductive and developmental effects of low doses of bisphenol A. Crit Rev Toxicol 36 (2006) 387-457
37. Sena E., van der Worp H.B., Howells D., and Macleod M. How can we improve the pre-clinical development of drugs for stroke?. Trends Neurosci 30 (2007) 433-439
38. Macleod M.R., O'Collins T., Horky L.L., Howells D.W., and Donnan G.A. Systematic review and metaanalysis of the efficacy of FK506 in experimental stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 25 (2005) 713-721
39. Bebarta V., Luyten D., and Heard K. Emergency medicine animal research: does use of randomization and blinding affect the results?. Acad Emerg Med 10 (2003) 684-687
40. Kenter M.J., and Cohen A.F. Establishing risk of human experimentation with drugs: lessons from TGN1412. Lancet 368 (2006) 1387-1391
41. Sundstrom L. Thinking inside the box. To cope with an increasing disease burden, drug discovery needs biologically relevant and predictive testing systems. EMBO Rep 8 (2007) Spec No:S40-43
42. Hill A.B. The environment and disease: association or causation?. Proc R Soc Med 58 (1965) 295-300
43. Stern J.M., and Simes R.J. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 315 (1997) 640-645
44. Ioannidis J.P., and Contopoulos-Ioannidis D.G. Reporting of safety data from randomised trials. Lancet 352 (1998) 1752-1753
45. Neitzke U., Harder T., Schellong K., Melchior K., Ziska T., Rodekamp E., et al. Intrauterine growth restriction in a rodent model and developmental programming of the metabolic syndrome: a critical appraisal of the experimental evidence. Placenta 29 (2008) 246-254
46. Macleod M.R., O'Collins T., Howells D.W., and Donnan G.A. Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias. Stroke 35 (2004) 1203-1208
47. Juutilainen J., Kumlin T., and Naarala J. Do extremely low frequency magnetic fields enhance the effects of environmental carcinogens? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Int J Radiat Biol 82 (2006) 1-12
48. Dirx M.J., Zeegers M.P., Dagnelie P.C., van den Bogaard T., and van den Brandt P.A. Energy restriction and the risk of spontaneous mammary tumors in mice: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 106 (2003) 766-770
49. Bracken M.B., DeWan A., and Hoh J. Genome wide association studies. In: Rebbeck TR, Ambrosome C.B., and Shields P.G. (Eds). Fundamentals of molecular epidemiology (2008), Taylor & Francis, New York 225-238
50. Ioannidis J.P., Ntzani E.E., Trikalinos T.A., and Contopoulos-Ioannidis D.G. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet 29 (2001) 306-309
51. Thompson J.F., Man M., Johnson K.J., Wood L.S., Lira M.E., Lloyd D.B., et al. An association study of 43 SNPs in 16 candidate genes with atorvastatin response. Pharmacogenomics J 5 (2005) 352-358
52. Williams S.M., Haines J.L., and Moore J.H. The use of animal models in the study of complex disease: all else is never equal or why do so many human studies fail to replicate animal findings?. Bioessays 26 (2004) 170-179
53. Wojczynski M.K., and Tiwari H.K. Definition of phenotype. Adv Genet. 60 (2008) 75-105
54. Scott S., Kranz J.E., Cole J., Lincecum J.M., Thompson K., Kelly N., et al. Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS. Amyotroph Lateral Scler 9 (2008) 4-15
55. Schnabel J. Neuroscience: standard model. Nature 454 (2008) 682-685
56. Chan A.W., Hrobjartsson A., Haahr M.T., Gotzsche P.C., and Altman D.G. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291 (2004) 2457-2465
57. Krleza-Jeric K., Chan A.W., Dickersin K., Sim I., Grimshaw J., and Guud C. Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1). BMJ 330 (2005) 956-958
58. Montori V.M., Jaeschke R., Schunemann H.J., Bhandara M., Brozek J.L., Devereaux P.J., et al. Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports. BMJ 329 (2004) 1093-1096
59. Mann H, Djulbegovic B. Why comparisons must address genuine uncertainties. James Lind Library. Available at: www.jameslindlibrary.org/essays/bias/comparator_bias.html. Accessed Jan 7, 2009.