Dataset Information

The need for randomization in animal trials: an overview of systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Randomization, allocation concealment, and blind outcome assessment have been shown to reduce bias in human studies. Authors from the Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) collaboration recently found that these features protect against bias in animal stroke studies. We extended the scope the work from CAMARADES to include investigations of treatments for any condition.

Methods

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched Medline and Embase for systematic reviews of animal studies testing any intervention (against any control) and we included any disease area and outcome. We included reviews comparing randomized versus not randomized (but otherwise controlled), concealed versus unconcealed treatment allocation, or blinded versus unblinded outcome assessment.

Results

Thirty-one systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria: 20 investigated treatments for experimental stroke, 4 reviews investigated treatments for spinal cord diseases, while 1 review each investigated treatments for bone cancer, intracerebral hemorrhage, glioma, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and treatments used in emergency medicine. In our sample 29% of studies reported randomization, 15% of studies reported allocation concealment, and 35% of studies reported blinded outcome assessment. We pooled the results in a meta-analysis, and in our primary analysis found that failure to randomize significantly increased effect sizes, whereas allocation concealment and blinding did not. In our secondary analyses we found that randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding reduced effect sizes, especially where outcomes were subjective.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates the need for randomization, allocation concealment, and blind outcome assessment in animal research across a wide range of outcomes and disease areas. Since human studies are often justified based on results from animal studies, our results suggest that unduly biased animal studies should not be allowed to constitute part of the rationale for human trials.

SUBMITTER: Hirst JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4048216 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The need for randomization in animal trials: an overview of systematic reviews.

Hirst Jennifer A JA Howick Jeremy J Aronson Jeffrey K JK Roberts Nia N Perera Rafael R Koshiaris Constantinos C Heneghan Carl C

PloS one 20140606 6

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Randomization, allocation concealment, and blind outcome assessment have been shown to reduce bias in human studies. Authors from the Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) collaboration recently found that these features protect against bias in animal stroke studies. We extended the scope the work from CAMARADES to include investigations of treatments for any condition.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted ...[more]

PMID: 24906117

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionAre systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on interventions in ART concordant in their conclusions?Summary answerThe majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period in the field of assisted reproduction on the same topic had discordant conclusions.What is known alreadySystematic reviews and meta-analyses have now replaced individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the top of the evidence pyramid. There has been a proliferation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, many of which suffer from methodological issues and provide varying conclusions.Study design size durationWe assessed nine interventions in women undergoing ART with at least three systematic reviews each, published from January 2015 to December 2017.Participants/materials setting methodsThe systematic reviews which included RCTs were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was extent of concordance between systematic reviews on the same topic. Secondary outcomes included assessment of quality of systematic reviews, differences in included studies in meta-analyses covering the same search period, selective reporting and reporting the quality of evidence.Main results and the role of chanceConcordant results and conclusions were found in only one topic, with reviews in the remaining eight topics displaying partial discordance. The AMSTAR grading for the majority of the non-Cochrane reviews was critically low whilst it was categorized as high for all of the Cochrane reviews. For three of the nine topics, none of the included systematic reviews assessed the quality of evidence. We were unable to assess selective reporting as most of the reviews did not have a pre-specified published protocol.Limitations reasons for cautionWe were limited by the high proportion of reviews lacking a pre-specified protocol, which made it impossible to assess for selective reporting. Furthermore, many reviews did not specify primary and secondary outcomes which made it difficult to assess reporting bias. All the authors of this review were Cochrane review authors which may introduce some assessment bias. The categorization of the review's conclusions as beneficial, harmful or neutral was subjective, depending on the tone and wording of the conclusion section of the review.Wider implications of the findingsThe majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on the same topic in the field of assisted reproduction revealed discordant conclusions and suffered from serious methodological issues, hindering the process of informed healthcare decision-making.Study funding/competing interestsAll the authors are Cochrane authors. M.S.K. is an editorial board member of Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. No grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors was obtained.

Project description:BackgroundTrial participants in placebo groups report experiencing adverse events (AEs). Existing systematic reviews have not been synthesized, leaving questions about why these events occur as well as their prevalence across different conditions unanswered.Objectives(1) To synthesize the evidence of prevalence of AEs in trial placebo groups across different conditions. (2) To compare AEs in trial placebo groups with AEs reported in untreated groups within a subset of randomized trials.Search methodsWe searched PubMed for records with the word "nocebo" in the title and "systematic" in any field. We also contacted experts and hand-searched references of included studies.Study eligibilityWe included any systematic review of randomized trials where nocebo effects were reported. We excluded systematic reviews of non-randomized studies.Participants and interventionsWe included studies in any disease area.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsWe appraised the quality of the studies using a shortened version of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR) tool. We reported medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of AEs. Among the trials within the review that included untreated groups, we compared the prevalence of AEs in untreated groups with the prevalence of AEs in placebo groups.ResultsWe identified 20 systematic reviews. These included 1271 randomized trials and 250,726 placebo-treated patients. The median prevalence of AEs in trial placebo groups was 49.1% (IQR 25.7-64.4%). The median rate of dropouts due to AEs was 5% (IQR 2.28-8.4%). Within the 15 of trials that reported AEs in untreated groups, we found that the AE rate in placebo groups (6.51%) was higher than that reported in untreated groups (4.25%).LimitationsThis study was limited by the quality of included reviews and the small number of trials that included untreated groups.Conclusions and implications of key findingsAEs in trial placebo groups are common and cannot be attributed entirely to natural history. Trial methodologies that reduce AEs in placebo groups while satisfying the requirement of informed consent should be developed and implemented.

Project description:PURPOSE:To systematically evaluate and summarize evidence across multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing polypharmacy. SUMMARY:MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were searched for SRs evaluating interventions addressing polypharmacy in adults published from January 2004 to February 2017. Two authors independently screened, appraised, and extracted information. SRs with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores below 8 were excluded. After extraction of relevant conclusions from each SR, evidence was summarized and conclusions compared. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality. Six SRs met the inclusion criteria, 4 of which used meta-analytic pooling. Five SRs focused on older adults. Four were not restricted to any specific disease type, whereas 1 focused on proton pump inhibitors and another focused on patients with severe dementia. Care settings and measured outcomes varied widely. SRs examining the impact on patient-centered outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, patient satisfaction, and utilization, found inconsistent evidence regarding the benefit of polypharmacy interventions, but most concluded that interventions had either null or uncertain impact. Two SRs assessing medication appropriateness found very low-quality evidence of modest improvements with polypharmacy interventions. CONCLUSION:An overview of SRs of interventions to address polypharmacy found 6 recent and high-quality SRs, mostly focused on older adults, in which both process and outcome measures were used to evaluate interventions. Despite the low quality of evidence in the underlying primary studies, both SRs that assessed medication appropriateness found evidence that polypharmacy interventions improved it. However, there was no consistent evidence of any impact on downstream patient-centered outcomes such as healthcare utilization, morbidity, or mortality.

Project description:PurposeTo systematically summarize evidence from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing medication nonadherence and to discern differences in effectiveness by intervention, patient, and study characteristics.SummaryMEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for papers published from January 2004 to February 2017. English-language SRs examining benefits of medication adherence interventions were eligible. Inclusion was limited to adult patients prescribed medication for 1 of the following disease conditions: diabetes and prediabetes, heart conditions, hypertension and prehypertension, stroke, and cognitive impairment. Non-disease-specific SRs that considered medication adherence interventions for older adults, adults with chronic illness, and adults with known medication adherence problems were also included. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. They then extracted key variables from eligible SRs, reconciling discrepancies via discussion. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was used to assess SRs; those with scores below 8 were excluded. Conclusions regarding intervention effectiveness were extracted. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was applied to assess evidence quality.ResultsOf 390 SRs, 25 met the inclusion criteria and assessed adherence as a primary outcome. Intervention types most consistently found to be effective were dose simplification, patient education, electronic reminders to patients, and reduced patient cost sharing or incentives. Of 50 conclusions drawn by the SRs, the underlying evidence was low or very low quality for 45 SRs.ConclusionDespite an abundance of primary studies and despite only examining high-quality SRs, the vast majority of primary studies supporting SR authors' conclusions were of low or very low quality. Nonetheless, health system leaders seeking to improve medication adherence should prioritize interventions that have been studied and found to be effective at improving patient adherence, including dose simplification, education, reminders, and financial incentives.

Project description:Periodontal disease is very common during pregnancy. Although it has been linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes, systematic reviews have reached discrepant conclusions on these links. Therefore, we conducted a systematic overview of systematic reviews studying the association between periodontal disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes. We searched 6 online databases up to November 2016 and hand-searched references and citations of eligible papers. Systematic reviews of studies comparing pregnancy outcomes among women with and without periodontal disease were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were maternal mortality, preterm birth, and perinatal mortality. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias of individual systematic reviews. Findings are described in tabular and narrative form. Twenty-three systematic reviews (including between 3 and 45 studies) were included. None reported the association between periodontal disease and maternal or perinatal mortality. Systematic reviews with the lowest risk of bias consistently demonstrated positive associations between periodontal disease and preterm birth (relative risk, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 2.0; 17 studies, 6,741 participants), low birth weight (LBW; relative risk, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.1; 10 studies, 5,693 participants), preeclampsia (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.4; 15 studies, 5,111 participants), and preterm LBW (relative risk 3.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 8.8; 4 studies, 2,263 participants). Based on these figures, estimated population-attributable fractions for periodontal disease were 5% to 38% for preterm birth, 6% to 41% for LBW, and 10% to 55% for preeclampsia. In terms of limitations, as several primary studies did not adjust for confounding, meta-analyses may have overestimated the strength of the associations under study. Due to substantial overlap in included primary studies, we could not aggregate results across reviews. Consistent evidence from systematic reviews with low risk of bias indicates that pregnant women with periodontal disease are at increased risk of developing preeclampsia and delivering a preterm and/or LBW baby (PROSPERO: CRD42015030132). Knowledge Transfer Statement: This study highlights that periodontal disease is an important risk factor for several common adverse pregnancy outcomes. Clinicians should be aware of this link to guide risk selection. Research is needed to develop novel preventive and treatment strategies.

Dataset Information

The need for randomization in animal trials: an overview of systematic reviews.

Background and objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The need for randomization in animal trials: an overview of systematic reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure