+ 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

Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research



Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research



Bmc Medical Research Methodology 6: 10



Systematic reviews can serve as a tool in translation of basic life sciences research from laboratory to human research and healthcare. The extent to which reviews of animal research are systematic and unbiased is not known. We searched, without language restrictions, Medline, Embase, bibliographies of known reviews (1996-2004) and contacted experts to identify citations of reviews of basic science literature which, as a minimum, performed search of a publicly available resource. From these we identified reviews of animal studies where laboratory variables were measured or where treatments were administered to live animals to examine their effects, and compared them with reviews of bench studies in which human or animal tissues, cell systems or organ preparations were examined in laboratories to better understand mechanisms of diseases. Systematic reviews of animal studies often lacked methodological features such as specification of a testable hypothesis (9/30, 30%); literature search without language restriction (8/30, 26.6%); assessment of publication bias (5/30, 16.6%), study validity (15/30, 50%) and heterogeneity (10/30, 33.3%); and meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis (12/30, 40%). Compared to reviews of bench studies, they were less prone to bias as they specified the question (96.6% vs. 80%, p = 0.04), searched multiple databases (60% vs. 26.6%, p = 0.01), assessed study quality (50% vs. 20%, p = 0.01), and explored heterogeneity (33.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.001) more often. There seems to be a gradient of frequency of methodological weaknesses among reviews: Attempted systematic reviews of whole animal research tend to be better than those of bench studies, though compared to systematic reviews of human clinical trials they are apparently poorer. There is a need for rigour when reviewing animal research.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 049582712

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 16533396

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-10


Related references

The methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies in dentistry. Veterinary Journal 192(2): 140-147, 2012

The practice of systematic reviews. III. Evaluation of methodological quality of research studies. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde 143(14): 714-719, 1999

Methodological quality and outcome of systematic reviews reporting on orthopaedic treatment for Class III malocclusion: Overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Orthodontics 43(2): 89, 2018

Methodological quality and outcome of systematic reviews reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion: Overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Orthodontics 43(2): 102-120, 2018

Evaluation of methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews). Rofo 184(10): 937-940, 2013

The methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing intravitreal bevacizumab and alternates for neovascular age related macular degeneration: A systematic review of reviews. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 62(7): 761-767, 2016

Overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional analysis using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy 2019, 2019

Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri-food public health. Research Synthesis Methods 7(4): 433-446, 2016

Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 17(1): 48, 2017

Systematic reviews identify important methodological flaws in stroke rehabilitation therapy primary studies: review of reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 65(4): 358-367, 2012

Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies. Human Reproduction 27(12): 3460-3466, 2013

Language Consideration and Methodological Transparency in "Systematic" Reviews of Animal Toxicity Studies. International Journal of Toxicology 2019: 1091581819827232, 2019

Systematic reviews of diagnostic research. Considerations about assessment and incorporation of methodological quality. European Journal of Epidemiology 17(4): 301-306, 2002

Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Research. Considerations about Assessment and Incorporation of Methodological Quality. European Journal of Epidemiology 17(4): 301-306, 2001

Methodological issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies in orthopaedic research. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 91 Suppl 3: 87-94, 2009