Dissemination bias in systematic reviews of animal research: A systematic review

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 12, 2014, Pages

  Mueller, Katharina F ^a   Briel, Matthias ^b,c   Strech, Daniel ^d   Meerpohl, Joerg J ^e   Lang, Britta ^e   Motschall, Edith ^e   Gloy, Viktoria ^b   Lamontagne, Francois ^f   Bassler, Dirk ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BASEL   (Switzerland)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY HANNOVER   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^f CENTRE HOSPITALIER UNIVERSITAIRE DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DISSEMINATION BIAS; IN VIVO STUDY; METHODOLOGY; NONHUMAN; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); ANIMAL; DRUG SCREENING; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PUBLISHING;

ANIMALIA;

ANIMALS; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATION BIAS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84919950805     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116016     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Pound P, Bracken MB (2014) Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ 348: g3387.
2. Pound P, Ebrahim S, Sandercock P, Bracken MB, Roberts I, et al. (2004) Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ 328: 514-517.
3. Nordmann AJ, Kasenda B, Briel M (2012) Meta-analyses: what they can and cannot do. Swiss Medical Weekly 142.
4. Mignini LEK, Khan KS (2006) Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research. BMC Med Res Methodol 6: 10.
5. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Rushton L, Abrams KR (2006) A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B 41: 1245-1258.
6. Korevaar DA, Hooft L, ter Riet G (2011) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim 45: 225-230.
7. Perrin S (2014) Preclinical research: Make mouse studies work. Nature 507: 423-425.
8. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG (2010) Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 8: e1000412.
9. Crossley NA, Sena E, Goehler J, Horn J, van der Worp B, et al. (2008) Empirical evidence of bias in the design of experimental stroke studies: a metaepidemiologic approach. Stroke 39: 929-934.
10. Higgins JPTG, Higgins S (2011) Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration Available: www.handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed 2014 Dec 05.
11. CAMARADES website. Available: http://www.dcn.ed.ac.uk/camarades/default.htm. Accessed 2014 Dec 05.
12. Muller KF, Briel M, D'Amario A, Kleijnen J, Marusic A, et al. (2013) Defining publication bias: protocol for a systematic review of highly cited articles and proposal for a new framework. Syst Rev 2: 34.
13. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, et al. (2010) Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess 14: iii, ix-xi, 1-193.
14. ter Riet G, Korevaar DA, Leenaars M, Sterk PJ, Van Noorden CJF, et al. (2012) Publication Bias in Laboratory Animal Research: A Survey on Magnitude, Drivers, Consequences and Potential Solutions. Plos One 7.
15. Begley CG, Ellis LM (2012) Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483: 531-533.
16. Liu S (2009) Dealing with publication bias in translational stroke research. J Exp Stroke Transl Med 2: 16-21.
17. Tsilidis KK, Panagiotou OA, Sena ES, Aretouli E, Evangelou E, et al. (2013) Evaluation of excess significance bias in animal studies of neurological diseases. PLoS Biol 11: e1001609.
18. Briel M, Muller KF, Meerpohl JJ, von Elm E, Lang B, et al. (2013) Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 2: 23.
19. Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P (2007) Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 7: 16.
20. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151: 264-269, W264.
21. Sandercock P, Roberts I (2002) Systematic reviews of animal experiments. Lancet 360: 586.
22. Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, Egan KJ, Hirst TC, Churolov L, et al. (2014) Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: a practical guide. J Neurosci Methods 221: 92-102.
23. Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, et al. (2014) SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 14: 43.
24. Mueller KF, Meerpohl JJ, Briel M, Antes G, von Elm E, et al. (2013) Detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses: protocol of a systematic review on methods. Syst Rev 2: 60.
25. Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PM, Howells DW, Macleod MR (2010) Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol 8: e1000344.
26. Varga O, Hansen AK, Sandoe P, Olsson IA (2010) Improving transparency and ethical accountability in animal studies: three ways to link ethical approvals to publications. EMBO Rep 11: 500-503.