+ 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

Animal experiments scrutinised: systematic reviews demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility



Animal experiments scrutinised: systematic reviews demonstrate poor human clinical and toxicological utility



Altex 24(4): 320-325



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. Of 20 reviews examining clinical utility, authors concluded that the animal models were substantially consistent with or useful in advancing clinical outcomes in only two cases, and the conclusion in one case was contentious. Included were 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 - the species 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 experimental outcomes arising from experimental environments and protocols, and the poor methodological quality of many animal experiments evident in at least 11 reviews. No reviews existed in which a majority of animal experiments were of good quality. While the latter problems might be minimised with concerted effort, given their widespread nature, the interspecies limitations are likely to be technically and theoretically impossible to overcome. Yet, unlike non-animal models, animal models are not normally subjected to formal scientific validation. Instead of simply assuming they are predictive of human outcomes, 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. Expected benefits would include 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 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 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 051551019

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 18288428


Related references

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

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 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