Cargando…

Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic revi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Briel, Matthias, Müller, Katharina F, Meerpohl, Joerg J, von Elm, Erik, Lang, Britta, Motschall, Edith, Gloy, Viktoria, Lamontagne, Francois, Schwarzer, Guido, Bassler, Dirk
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3651300/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23621910
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-23
_version_ 1782269199742140416
author Briel, Matthias
Müller, Katharina F
Meerpohl, Joerg J
von Elm, Erik
Lang, Britta
Motschall, Edith
Gloy, Viktoria
Lamontagne, Francois
Schwarzer, Guido
Bassler, Dirk
author_facet Briel, Matthias
Müller, Katharina F
Meerpohl, Joerg J
von Elm, Erik
Lang, Britta
Motschall, Edith
Gloy, Viktoria
Lamontagne, Francois
Schwarzer, Guido
Bassler, Dirk
author_sort Briel, Matthias
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows: •To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. •To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. •To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3651300
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36513002013-05-11 Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol Briel, Matthias Müller, Katharina F Meerpohl, Joerg J von Elm, Erik Lang, Britta Motschall, Edith Gloy, Viktoria Lamontagne, Francois Schwarzer, Guido Bassler, Dirk Syst Rev Protocol BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows: •To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. •To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. •To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care. BioMed Central 2013-04-27 /pmc/articles/PMC3651300/ /pubmed/23621910 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-23 Text en Copyright © 2013 Briel et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Protocol
Briel, Matthias
Müller, Katharina F
Meerpohl, Joerg J
von Elm, Erik
Lang, Britta
Motschall, Edith
Gloy, Viktoria
Lamontagne, Francois
Schwarzer, Guido
Bassler, Dirk
Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol
title Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol
title_full Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol
title_fullStr Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol
title_full_unstemmed Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol
title_short Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol
title_sort publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol
topic Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3651300/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23621910
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-23
work_keys_str_mv AT brielmatthias publicationbiasinanimalresearchasystematicreviewprotocol
AT mullerkatharinaf publicationbiasinanimalresearchasystematicreviewprotocol
AT meerpohljoergj publicationbiasinanimalresearchasystematicreviewprotocol
AT vonelmerik publicationbiasinanimalresearchasystematicreviewprotocol
AT langbritta publicationbiasinanimalresearchasystematicreviewprotocol
AT motschalledith publicationbiasinanimalresearchasystematicreviewprotocol
AT gloyviktoria publicationbiasinanimalresearchasystematicreviewprotocol
AT lamontagnefrancois publicationbiasinanimalresearchasystematicreviewprotocol
AT schwarzerguido publicationbiasinanimalresearchasystematicreviewprotocol
AT basslerdirk publicationbiasinanimalresearchasystematicreviewprotocol