+ 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



Systematic reviews of animal experiments



Lancet 360(9333): 586



Regulatory and reimbursement authorities face uncertain choices when considering the adoption of health-care technologies. In this Viewpoint, we present an analytic framework that separates the issue of whether a technology should be adopted on the basis of existing evidence from whether more research should be demanded to support future decisions. We show the application of this framework to the assessment of heath-care technologies using a published analysis of a new drug treatment for Alzheimer's disease. The results of the analysis show that the amount and type of evidence required to support the adoption of a health technology will differ substantially between technologies with different characteristics. Additionally, the analysis can be used to aid the efficient design of research. We discuss the implications of adoption of this new framework for regulatory and reimbursement decisions.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 035819102

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 12241927

DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)09812-4


Related references

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

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

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

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

Systematic reviews of animal experiments demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility. ATLA Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 35(6): 641-659, 2007

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

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

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

Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 6: 10, 2006

An introduction to systematic reviews in animal health, animal welfare, and food safety. Animal Health Research Reviews 15(1): 3-13, 2015

Dissemination bias in systematic reviews of animal research: a systematic review. Plos One 9(12): E116016, 2015

A Critical Review of Search Strategies Used in Recent Systematic Reviews Published in Selected Prosthodontic and Implant-Related Journals: Are Systematic Reviews Actually Systematic?. International Journal of Prosthodontics 30(1): 13-21, 2017