+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility



Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility



ATLA Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 35(6): 641-659



The assumption that animal models are reasonably predictive of human outcomes provides the basis for their widespread use in toxicity testing and in biomedical research aimed at developing cures for human diseases. To investigate the validity of this assumption, the comprehensive Scopus biomedical bibliographic databases were searched for published systematic reviews of the human clinical or toxicological utility of animal experiments. In 20 reviews in which clinical utility was examined, the authors concluded that animal models were either significantly useful in contributing to the development of clinical interventions, or were substantially consistent with clinical outcomes, in only two cases, one of which was contentious. These included reviews of the clinical utility of experiments expected by ethics committees to lead to medical advances, of highly-cited experiments published in major journals, and of chimpanzee experiments - those involving the species considered most likely to be predictive of human outcomes. Seven additional reviews failed to clearly demonstrate utility in predicting human toxicological outcomes, such as carcinogenicity and teratogenicity. Consequently, animal data may not generally be assumed to be substantially useful for these purposes. Possible causes include interspecies differences, the distortion of outcomes arising from experimental environments and protocols, and the poor methodological quality of many animal experiments, which was evident in at least 11 reviews. No reviews existed in which the majority of animal experiments were of good methodological quality. Whilst the effects of some of these problems might be minimised with concerted effort (given their widespread prevalence), the limitations resulting from interspecies differences are likely to be technically and theoretically impossible to overcome. Non-animal models are generally required to pass formal scientific validation prior to their regulatory acceptance. In contrast, animal models are simply assumed to be predictive of human outcomes. These results demonstrate the invalidity of such assumptions. The consistent application of formal validation studies to all test models is clearly warranted, regardless of their animal, non-animal, historical, contemporary or possible future status. Likely benefits would include, the greater selection of models truly predictive of human outcomes, increased safety of people exposed to chemicals that have passed toxicity tests, increased efficiency during the development of human pharmaceuticals and other therapeutic interventions, and decreased wastage of animal, personnel and financial resources. The poor human clinical and toxicological utility of most animal models for which data exists, in conjunction with their generally substantial animal welfare and economic costs, justify a ban on animal models lacking scientific data clearly establishing their human predictivity or utility.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 020184871

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

DOI: 10.1177/026119290703500610


Related references

Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 35(6): 641-659, 2008

Animal experiments scrutinised: systematic reviews demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility. Altex 24(4): 320-325, 2008

Systematic Reviews of Animal Experiments Demonstrate Poor Contributions Toward Human Healthcare. Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials 3(2): 89-96, 2008

Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor contributions toward human healthcare. Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials 3(2): 89-96, 2008

The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies. Ilar Journal 55(3): 427-437, 2015

A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part. B, Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes 41(7): 1245-1258, 2006

A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Animal Experiments with Guidelines for Reporting. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B: Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes 41(7): 1245-1258, 2006

Systematic reviews of animal experiments. Lancet 360(9333): 586, 2002

Surveying the literature from animal experiments: avoidance of bias is objective of systematic reviews, not meta-analysis. BMJ 331(7508): 110-111, 2005

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Laboratory Animals 45(4): 225-230, 2012

From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance. Open Dentistry Journal 4: 84-91, 2010

The utility of animal models for toxicological studies of human diseased. Japanese Journal of Pharmacology 27(SUPPL): 21P, 1977

Assessing the applicability of findings in systematic reviews of complex interventions can enhance the utility of reviews for decision making. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 66(11): 1251-1261, 2014

The study design elements employed by researchers in preclinical animal experiments from two research domains and implications for automation of systematic reviews. Plos One 13(6): E0199441, 2018

Human and animal experiments--the toxicological general situation: phosphate balance. Deutsches Medizinisches Journal 22(20): 653-654, 1971