Dissemination bias in systematic reviews of animal research: A systematic review

Download statistics - Document (COUNTER):

Mueller, K.F.; Briel, M.; Strech, D.; Meerpohl, J.J.; Lang, B.; et al.: Dissemination bias in systematic reviews of animal research: A systematic review. In: PLoS ONE 9 (2014), Nr. 12, e116016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116016

Repository version

To cite the version in the repository, please use this identifier: https://doi.org/10.15488/970

Selected time period:

year: 
month: 

Sum total of downloads: 77




Thumbnail
Abstract: 
Background: Systematic reviews of preclinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical research and thus even clinical care. Dissemination bias, selective dissemination of positive or significant results, is one of the major threats to validity in systematic reviews also in the realm of animal studies. We conducted a systematic review to determine the number of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present, to investigate their methodological features especially with respect to assessment of dissemination bias, and to investigate the citation of preclinical systematic reviews on clinical research. Methods: Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews that summarize in vivo animal experiments whose results could be interpreted as applicable to clinical care. We systematically searched Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 1st January 2009 to 9th January 2013 for eligible systematic reviews without language restrictions. Furthermore we included articles from two previous systematic reviews by Peters et al. and Korevaar et al. Results: The literature search and screening process resulted in 512 included full text articles. We found an increasing number of published preclinical systematic reviews over time. The methodological quality of preclinical systematic reviews was low. The majority of preclinical systematic reviews did not assess methodological quality of the included studies (71%), nor did they assess heterogeneity (81%) or dissemination bias (87%). Statistics quantifying the importance of clinical research citing systematic reviews of animal studies showed that clinical studies referred to the preclinical research mainly to justify their study or a future study (76%). Discussion: Preclinical systematic reviews may have an influence on clinical research but their methodological quality frequently remains low. Therefore, systematic reviews of animal research should be critically appraised before translating them to a clinical context.
License of this version: CC BY 4.0
Document Type: article
Publishing status: publishedVersion
Issue Date: 2014
Appears in Collections:Philosophische Fakultät

distribution of downloads over the selected time period:

downloads by country:

pos. country downloads
total perc.
1 image of flag of Germany Germany 68 88.31%
2 image of flag of Switzerland Switzerland 3 3.90%
3 image of flag of Slovenia Slovenia 1 1.30%
4 image of flag of Macedonia Macedonia 1 1.30%
5 image of flag of Morocco Morocco 1 1.30%
6 image of flag of Ireland Ireland 1 1.30%
7 image of flag of China China 1 1.30%
8 image of flag of Brazil Brazil 1 1.30%

Further download figures and rankings:


Hinweis

Zur Erhebung der Downloadstatistiken kommen entsprechend dem „COUNTER Code of Practice for e-Resources“ international anerkannte Regeln und Normen zur Anwendung. COUNTER ist eine internationale Non-Profit-Organisation, in der Bibliotheksverbände, Datenbankanbieter und Verlage gemeinsam an Standards zur Erhebung, Speicherung und Verarbeitung von Nutzungsdaten elektronischer Ressourcen arbeiten, welche so Objektivität und Vergleichbarkeit gewährleisten sollen. Es werden hierbei ausschließlich Zugriffe auf die entsprechenden Volltexte ausgewertet, keine Aufrufe der Website an sich.

Search the repository


Browse