Dataset Information

The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies.

ABSTRACT: The question of how animal studies should be designed, conducted, and analyzed remains underexposed in societal debates on animal experimentation. This is not only a scientific but also a moral question. After all, if animal experiments are not appropriately designed, conducted, and analyzed, the results produced are unlikely to be reliable and the animals have in effect been wasted. In this article, we focus on one particular method to address this moral question, namely systematic reviews of previously performed animal experiments. We discuss how the design, conduct, and analysis of future (animal and human) experiments may be optimized through such systematic reviews. In particular, we illustrate how these reviews can help improve the methodological quality of animal experiments, make the choice of an animal model and the translation of animal data to the clinic more evidence-based, and implement the 3Rs. Moreover, we discuss which measures are being taken and which need to be taken in the future to ensure that systematic reviews will actually contribute to optimizing experimental design and thereby to meeting a necessary condition for making the use of animals in these experiments justified.

SUBMITTER: de Vries RB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4276599 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies.

de Vries Rob B M RB Wever Kimberley E KE Avey Marc T MT Stephens Martin L ML Sena Emily S ES Leenaars Marlies M

ILAR journal 20140101 3

The question of how animal studies should be designed, conducted, and analyzed remains underexposed in societal debates on animal experimentation. This is not only a scientific but also a moral question. After all, if animal experiments are not appropriately designed, conducted, and analyzed, the results produced are unlikely to be reliable and the animals have in effect been wasted. In this article, we focus on one particular method to address this moral question, namely systematic reviews of p ...[more]

PMID: 25541545

Similar Datasets

Project description:Systematic reviews are increasingly using data from preclinical animal experiments in evidence networks. Further, there are ever-increasing efforts to automate aspects of the systematic review process. When assessing systematic bias and unit-of-analysis errors in preclinical experiments, it is critical to understand the study design elements employed by investigators. Such information can also inform prioritization of automation efforts that allow the identification of the most common issues. The aim of this study was to identify the design elements used by investigators in preclinical research in order to inform unique aspects of assessment of bias and error in preclinical research. Using 100 preclinical experiments each related to brain trauma and toxicology, we assessed design elements described by the investigators. We evaluated Methods and Materials sections of reports for descriptions of the following design elements: 1) use of comparison group, 2) unit of allocation of the interventions to study units, 3) arrangement of factors, 4) method of factor allocation to study units, 5) concealment of the factors during allocation and outcome assessment, 6) independence of study units, and 7) nature of factors. Many investigators reported using design elements that suggested the potential for unit-of-analysis errors, i.e., descriptions of repeated measurements of the outcome (94/200) and descriptions of potential for pseudo-replication (99/200). Use of complex factor arrangements was common, with 112 experiments using some form of factorial design (complete, incomplete or split-plot-like). In the toxicology dataset, 20 of the 100 experiments appeared to use a split-plot-like design, although no investigators used this term. The common use of repeated measures and factorial designs means understanding bias and error in preclinical experimental design might require greater expertise than simple parallel designs. Similarly, use of complex factor arrangements creates novel challenges for accurate automation of data extraction and bias and error assessment in preclinical experiments.

Project description:BackgroundThe vast majority of medical interventions introduced into clinical development prove unsafe or ineffective. One prominent explanation for the dismal success rate is flawed preclinical research. We conducted a systematic review of preclinical research guidelines and organized recommendations according to the type of validity threat (internal, construct, or external) or programmatic research activity they primarily address.Methods and findingsWe searched MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Google, and the EQUATOR Network website for all preclinical guideline documents published up to April 9, 2013 that addressed the design and conduct of in vivo animal experiments aimed at supporting clinical translation. To be eligible, documents had to provide guidance on the design or execution of preclinical animal experiments and represent the aggregated consensus of four or more investigators. Data from included guidelines were independently extracted by two individuals for discrete recommendations on the design and implementation of preclinical efficacy studies. These recommendations were then organized according to the type of validity threat they addressed. A total of 2,029 citations were identified through our search strategy. From these, we identified 26 guidelines that met our eligibility criteria--most of which were directed at neurological or cerebrovascular drug development. Together, these guidelines offered 55 different recommendations. Some of the most common recommendations included performance of a power calculation to determine sample size, randomized treatment allocation, and characterization of disease phenotype in the animal model prior to experimentation.ConclusionsBy identifying the most recurrent recommendations among preclinical guidelines, we provide a starting point for developing preclinical guidelines in other disease domains. We also provide a basis for the study and evaluation of preclinical research practice. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine concordance between treatment effects in animal experiments and clinical trials. Study design Systematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, SIGLE, NTIS, Science Citation Index, CAB, BIOSIS.Study selectionAnimal studies for interventions with unambiguous evidence of a treatment effect (benefit or harm) in clinical trials: head injury, antifibrinolytics in haemorrhage, thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke, tirilazad in acute ischaemic stroke, antenatal corticosteroids to prevent neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, and bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis. Review methods Data were extracted on study design, allocation concealment, number of randomised animals, type of model, intervention, and outcome.ResultsCorticosteroids did not show any benefit in clinical trials of treatment for head injury but did show a benefit in animal models (pooled odds ratio for adverse functional outcome 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.83). Antifibrinolytics reduced bleeding in clinical trials but the data were inconclusive in animal models. Thrombolysis improved outcome in patients with ischaemic stroke. In animal models, tissue plasminogen activator reduced infarct volume by 24% (95% confidence interval 20% to 28%) and improved neurobehavioural scores by 23% (17% to 29%). Tirilazad was associated with a worse outcome in patients with ischaemic stroke. In animal models, tirilazad reduced infarct volume by 29% (21% to 37%) and improved neurobehavioural scores by 48% (29% to 67%). Antenatal corticosteroids reduced respiratory distress and mortality in neonates whereas in animal models respiratory distress was reduced but the effect on mortality was inconclusive (odds ratio 4.2, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 20.9). Bisphosphonates increased bone mineral density in patients with osteoporosis. In animal models the bisphosphonate alendronate increased bone mineral density compared with placebo by 11.0% (95% confidence interval 9.2% to 12.9%) in the combined results for the hip region. The corresponding treatment effect in the lumbar spine was 8.5% (5.8% to 11.2%) and in the combined results for the forearms (baboons only) was 1.7% (-1.4% to 4.7%).ConclusionsDiscordance between animal and human studies may be due to bias or to the failure of animal models to mimic clinical disease adequately.

Project description:The validity of preclinical studies of candidate therapeutic agents has been questioned given their limited ability to predict their fate in clinical development, including due to design flaws and reporting bias. In this study, we examined this issue in depth by conducting a meta-analysis of animal studies investigating the efficacy of the clinically approved kinase inhibitor, sorafenib. MEDLINE, Embase, and BIOSIS databases were searched for all animal experiments testing tumor volume response to sorafenib monotherapy in any cancer published until April 20, 2012. We estimated effect sizes from experiments assessing changes in tumor volume and conducted subgroup analyses based on prespecified experimental design elements associated with internal, construct, and external validity. The meta-analysis included 97 experiments involving 1,761 animals. We excluded 94 experiments due to inadequate reporting of data. Design elements aimed at reducing internal validity threats were implemented only sporadically, with 66% reporting animal attrition and none reporting blinded outcome assessment or concealed allocation. Anticancer activity against various malignancies was typically tested in only a small number of model systems. Effect sizes were significantly smaller when sorafenib was tested against either a different active agent or combination arm. Trim and fill suggested a 37% overestimation of effect sizes across all malignancies due to publication bias. We detected a moderate dose-response in one clinically approved indication, hepatocellular carcinoma, but not in another approved malignancy, renal cell carcinoma, or when data were pooled across all malignancies tested. In support of other reports, we found that few preclinical cancer studies addressed important internal, construct, and external validity threats, limiting their clinical generalizability. Our findings reinforce the need to improve guidelines for the design and reporting of preclinical cancer studies. Cancer Res; 76(16); 4627-36. ©2016 AACR.

Dataset Information

The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies.

Publications

The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets