Dataset Information

Systematic reviews of animal studies; missing link in translational research?

ABSTRACT:

Background

The methodological quality of animal studies is an important factor hampering the translation of results from animal studies to a clinical setting. Systematic reviews of animal studies may provide a suitable method to assess and thereby improve their methodological quality.

Objectives

The aims of this study were: 1) to evaluate the risk of bias assessment in animal-based systematic reviews, and 2) to study the internal validity of the primary animal studies included in these systematic reviews.

Data sources

We systematically searched Pubmed and Embase for SRs of preclinical animal studies published between 2005 and 2012.

Results

A total of 91 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed in 48 (52.7%) of these 91 systematic reviews. Thirty-three (36.3%) SRs provided sufficient information to evaluate the internal validity of the included studies. Of the evaluated primary studies, 24.6% was randomized, 14.6% reported blinding of the investigator/caretaker, 23.9% blinded the outcome assessment, and 23.1% reported drop-outs.

Conclusions

To improve the translation of animal data to clinical practice, systematic reviews of animal studies are worthwhile, but the internal validity of primary animal studies needs to be improved. Furthermore, risk of bias should be assessed by systematic reviews of animal studies to provide insight into the reliability of the available evidence.

SUBMITTER: van Luijk J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3966727 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic reviews of animal studies; missing link in translational research?

van Luijk Judith J Bakker Brenda B Rovers Maroeska M MM Ritskes-Hoitinga Merel M de Vries Rob B M RB Leenaars Marlies M

PloS one 20140326 3

<h4>Background</h4>The methodological quality of animal studies is an important factor hampering the translation of results from animal studies to a clinical setting. Systematic reviews of animal studies may provide a suitable method to assess and thereby improve their methodological quality.<h4>Objectives</h4>The aims of this study were: 1) to evaluate the risk of bias assessment in animal-based systematic reviews, and 2) to study the internal validity of the primary animal studies included in ...[more]

PMID: 24670965

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is a great deal of interest in personalized, individualized, or precision interventions for disease and health-risk mitigation. This is as true of nutrition-based intervention and prevention strategies as it is for pharmacotherapies and pharmaceutical-oriented prevention strategies. Essentially, technological breakthroughs have enabled researchers to probe an individual's unique genetic, biochemical, physiological, behavioral, and exposure profile, allowing them to identify very specific and often nuanced factors that an individual might possess, which may make it more or less likely that he or she responds favorably to a particular intervention (e.g., nutrient supplementation) or disease prevention strategy (e.g., specific diet). However, as compelling and intuitive as personalized nutrition might be in the current era in which data-intensive biomedical characterization of individuals is possible, appropriately and objectively vetting personalized nutrition strategies is not trivial and requires novel study designs and data analytical methods. These designs and methods must consider a very integrated use of the multiple contemporary biomedical assays and technologies that motivate them, which adds to their complexity. Single-subject or N-of-1 trials can be used to assess the utility of personalized interventions and, in addition, can be crafted in such a way as to accommodate the necessarily integrated use of many emerging biomedical technologies and assays. In this review, we consider the motivation, design, and implementation of N-of-1 trials in translational nutrition research that are meant to assess the utility of personalized nutritional strategies. We provide a number of example studies, discuss appropriate analytical methods given the complex data they generate and require, and consider how such studies could leverage integration of various biomarker assays and clinical end points. Importantly, we also consider the development of strategies and algorithms for matching nutritional needs to individual biomedical profiles and the issues surrounding them. Finally, we discuss the limitations of personalized nutrition studies, possible extensions of N-of-1 nutritional intervention studies, and areas of future research.

Dataset Information

Systematic reviews of animal studies; missing link in translational research?

Background

Objectives

Data sources

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Systematic reviews of animal studies; missing link in translational research?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets