A step-by-step guide to systematically identify all relevant animal studies

Laboratory Animals

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 24-31

  Leenaars, Marlies ^a   Hooijmans, Carlijn R ^a   van Veggel, Nieky ^a,b   ter Riet, Gerben ^c   Leeflang, Mariska ^d   Hooft, Lotty ^e   van der Wilt, Gert Jan ^a   Tillema, Alice ^a   Ritskes Hoitinga, Merel ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^d Dutch Cochrane Centre   (Netherlands)

^e Netherlands Trial Register   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Education and training; Search guide; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; DATA BASE; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; NONHUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RESEARCH; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION; ANIMALS; ANIMALS, LABORATORY; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SEARCH ENGINE;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84858390160     PISSN: 00236772     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/la.2011.011087     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:376-80
2. Chalmers I, Altman D, ed. Systematic Reviews. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1995
3. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. See www.cochrane-handbook.org
4. Macleod MR, Fisher M, O'Collins V, et al. Good laboratory practice: preventing introduction of bias at the bench. Stroke 2009;40:e50-2
5. Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PM, Howells DW, Macleod MR. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol 2010;8:e1000344
6. van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, et al. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000245
7. 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
8. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Rushton L, Abrams KR. 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
9. Leenaars M, Savenije B, Nagtegaal A, van der Vaart L, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Assessing the search for and implementation of the three Rs: a survey among scientists. Altern Lab Anim 2009;37:297-303
10. Hooijmans CR, Tillema A, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed. Lab Anim 2010;44:170-5
11. De Vries R, Hooijmans CR, Tillema A, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. A search filter for increasing the retrieval of animal studies in EMBASE. Lab Anim (in press)
12. Bachmann LM, Coray R, Estermann P, Ter Riet G. Identifying diagnostic studies in MEDLINE: reducing the number needed to read. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002;9:653-8
13. Egger M, Dickersin K, Davey Smith G. Problems and Limitations in Conducting Systematic Reviews. 2nd edn. London: BMJ Publication Group, 2001
14. Lohonen J, Isohanni M, Nieminen P, Miettunen J. A guide for medical information searches of bibliographic databases - psychiatric research as an example. Int J Circumpolar Health 2009;68:394-404
15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535
16. Wyatt JC, Sullivan F. Keeping up: learning in the workplace. BMJ 2005;331:1129-32
17. Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC). Website: Literature Searching and Databases. See http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=3&tax_level=2&tax_subject=184&topic_id=1115&placement_default=0. Last entry: 23 June 2011 (last checked 2 August 2011)