IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0116016.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dissemination Bias in Systematic Reviews of Animal Research: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Katharina F Mueller
  • Matthias Briel
  • Daniel Strech
  • Joerg J Meerpohl
  • Britta Lang
  • Edith Motschall
  • Viktoria Gloy
  • Francois Lamontagne
  • Dirk Bassler

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews of preclinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical research and thus even clinical care. Dissemination bias, selective dissemination of positive or significant results, is one of the major threats to validity in systematic reviews also in the realm of animal studies. We conducted a systematic review to determine the number of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present, to investigate their methodological features especially with respect to assessment of dissemination bias, and to investigate the citation of preclinical systematic reviews on clinical research. Methods: Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews that summarize in vivo animal experiments whose results could be interpreted as applicable to clinical care. We systematically searched Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 1st January 2009 to 9th January 2013 for eligible systematic reviews without language restrictions. Furthermore we included articles from two previous systematic reviews by Peters et al. and Korevaar et al. Results: The literature search and screening process resulted in 512 included full text articles. We found an increasing number of published preclinical systematic reviews over time. The methodological quality of preclinical systematic reviews was low. The majority of preclinical systematic reviews did not assess methodological quality of the included studies (71%), nor did they assess heterogeneity (81%) or dissemination bias (87%). Statistics quantifying the importance of clinical research citing systematic reviews of animal studies showed that clinical studies referred to the preclinical research mainly to justify their study or a future study (76%). Discussion: Preclinical systematic reviews may have an influence on clinical research but their methodological quality frequently remains low. Therefore, systematic reviews of animal research should be critically appraised before translating them to a clinical context.

Suggested Citation

  • Katharina F Mueller & Matthias Briel & Daniel Strech & Joerg J Meerpohl & Britta Lang & Edith Motschall & Viktoria Gloy & Francois Lamontagne & Dirk Bassler, 2014. "Dissemination Bias in Systematic Reviews of Animal Research: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0116016
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116016
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116016&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0116016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steve Perrin, 2014. "Preclinical research: Make mouse studies work," Nature, Nature, vol. 507(7493), pages 423-425, March.
    2. Carol Kilkenny & William J Browne & Innes C Cuthill & Michael Emerson & Douglas G Altman, 2010. "Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-5, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rannapaula Lawrynhuk Urbano Ferreira & Ângela Waleska Freire de Sousa & Antonio Gouveia Oliveira & Adriana Augusto de Rezende & Ricardo Ney Cobucci & Lucia Fatima Campos Pedrosa, 2022. "Effects of selenium supplementation on glycemic control markers in healthy rodents: A systematic review protocol," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-9, April.
    2. Victoria T Hunniford & Joshua Montroy & Dean A Fergusson & Marc T Avey & Kimberley E Wever & Sarah K McCann & Madison Foster & Grace Fox & Mackenzie Lafreniere & Mira Ghaly & Sydney Mannell & Karolina, 2021. "Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-17, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aaron C Ericsson & J Wade Davis & William Spollen & Nathan Bivens & Scott Givan & Catherine E Hagan & Mark McIntosh & Craig L Franklin, 2015. "Effects of Vendor and Genetic Background on the Composition of the Fecal Microbiota of Inbred Mice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Airi Jo-Watanabe & Toshiki Inaba & Takahiro Osada & Ryota Hashimoto & Tomohiro Nishizawa & Toshiaki Okuno & Sayoko Ihara & Kazushige Touhara & Nobutaka Hattori & Masatsugu Oh-Hora & Osamu Nureki & Tak, 2024. "Bicarbonate signalling via G protein-coupled receptor regulates ischaemia-reperfusion injury," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Dean A Fergusson & Marc T Avey & Carly C Barron & Mathew Bocock & Kristen E Biefer & Sylvain Boet & Stephane L Bourque & Isidora Conic & Kai Chen & Yuan Yi Dong & Grace M Fox & Ronald B George & Neil , 2019. "Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
    4. M Polyakova & M L Schroeter & B M Elzinga & S Holiga & P Schoenknecht & E R de Kloet & M L Molendijk, 2015. "Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor and Antidepressive Effect of Electroconvulsive Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of the Preclinical and Clinical Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    5. Kimberley E Wever & Carlijn R Hooijmans & Niels P Riksen & Thomas B Sterenborg & Emily S Sena & Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga & Michiel C Warlé, 2015. "Determinants of the Efficacy of Cardiac Ischemic Preconditioning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    6. Bettina Bert & Céline Heinl & Justyna Chmielewska & Franziska Schwarz & Barbara Grune & Andreas Hensel & Matthias Greiner & Gilbert Schönfelder, 2019. "Refining animal research: The Animal Study Registry," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-12, October.
    7. Xiao-meng Xu & Guang-yan Cai & Ru Bu & Wen-juan Wang & Xue-yuan Bai & Xue-feng Sun & Xiang-mei Chen, 2015. "Beneficial Effects of Caloric Restriction on Chronic Kidney Disease in Rodent Models: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Zhongwei Xu & Bingze Xu & Susanna L. Lundström & Àlex Moreno-Giró & Danxia Zhao & Myriam Martin & Erik Lönnblom & Qixing Li & Alexander Krämer & Changrong Ge & Lei Cheng & Bibo Liang & Dongmei Tong & , 2023. "A subset of type-II collagen-binding antibodies prevents experimental arthritis by inhibiting FCGR3 signaling in neutrophils," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Nathalie Percie du Sert & Viki Hurst & Amrita Ahluwalia & Sabina Alam & Marc T Avey & Monya Baker & William J Browne & Alejandra Clark & Innes C Cuthill & Ulrich Dirnagl & Michael Emerson & Paul Garne, 2020. "The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-12, July.
    10. Vivian Leung & Frédérik Rousseau-Blass & Guy Beauchamp & Daniel S J Pang, 2018. "ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesi," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, May.
    11. Claudia Kurreck & Esmeralda Castaños-Vélez & Dorette Freyer & Sonja Blumenau & Ingo Przesdzing & Rene Bernard & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2020. "Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-15, October.
    12. Simon Bate & Natasha A Karp, 2014. "A Common Control Group - Optimising the Experiment Design to Maximise Sensitivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Laura Maxim & Jeroen P van der Sluijs, 2014. "Qualichem In Vivo: A Tool for Assessing the Quality of In Vivo Studies and Its Application for Bisphenol A," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, January.
    14. Beverly S Muhlhausler & Frank H Bloomfield & Matthew W Gillman, 2013. "Whole Animal Experiments Should Be More Like Human Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-6, February.
    15. Sarah Driessen & Lambert Bodewein & Dagmar Dechent & David Graefrath & Kristina Schmiedchen & Dominik Stunder & Thomas Kraus & Anne-Kathrin Petri, 2020. "Biological and health-related effects of weak static magnetic fields (≤ 1 mT) in humans and vertebrates: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, June.
    16. Constance Holman & Sophie K Piper & Ulrike Grittner & Andreas Antonios Diamantaras & Jonathan Kimmelman & Bob Siegerink & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2016. "Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    17. Thirumalai Diraviyam & Bin Zhao & Yuan Wang & Ruediger Schade & Antonysamy Michael & Xiaoying Zhang, 2014. "Effect of Chicken Egg Yolk Antibodies (IgY) against Diarrhea in Domesticated Animals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-14, May.
    18. Chunyan Cai & Jin Piao & Jing Ning & Xuelin Huang, 2018. "Efficient Two-Stage Designs and Proper Inference for Animal Studies," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 10(1), pages 217-232, April.
    19. Bertha Estrella & Elena N. Naumova & Magda Cepeda & Trudy Voortman & Peter D. Katsikis & Hemmo A. Drexhage, 2019. "Effects of Air Pollution on Lung Innate Lymphoid Cells: Review of In Vitro and In Vivo Experimental Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-15, July.
    20. Emily M Wong & Fern Tablin & Edward S Schelegle, 2020. "Comparison of nonparametric and parametric methods for time-frequency heart rate variability analysis in a rodent model of cardiovascular disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0116016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.