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

Show simple item record

dc.identifier.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.15488/970
dc.identifier.uri http://www.repo.uni-hannover.de/handle/123456789/994
dc.contributor.author Müller, Katharina F.
dc.contributor.author Briel, Matthias
dc.contributor.author Strech, Daniel
dc.contributor.author Meerpohl, Jörg J.
dc.contributor.author Lang, Britta
dc.contributor.author Motschall, Edith
dc.contributor.author Gloy, Viktoria
dc.contributor.author Lamontagne, Francois
dc.contributor.author Bassler, Dirk
dc.date.accessioned 2016-12-22T07:48:57Z
dc.date.available 2016-12-22T07:48:57Z
dc.date.issued 2014
dc.identifier.citation 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
dc.description.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. eng
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher San Francisco : Public Library of Science
dc.relation.ispartofseries PLoS ONE 9 (2014)
dc.rights CC BY 4.0
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject animal experiment eng
dc.subject clinical research eng
dc.subject dissemination bias eng
dc.subject in vivo study eng
dc.subject methodology eng
dc.subject nonhuman eng
dc.subject publication eng
dc.subject quality control eng
dc.subject Review eng
dc.subject systematic error eng
dc.subject systematic review (topic) eng
dc.subject drug screening eng
dc.subject literature eng
dc.subject meta analysis (topic) eng
dc.subject publishing eng
dc.subject Animalia eng
dc.subject Animals eng
dc.subject Drug Evaluation, Preclinical eng
dc.subject Publication Bias eng
dc.subject.ddc 610 | Medizin, Gesundheit ger
dc.subject.ddc 570 | Biowissenschaften, Biologie ger
dc.title Dissemination bias in systematic reviews of animal research: A systematic review
dc.type article
dc.type Text
dc.relation.issn 19326203
dc.relation.doi https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116016
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue 12
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume 9
dc.bibliographicCitation.lastPage e116016
dc.description.version publishedVersion
tib.accessRights frei zug�nglich


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s):

Show simple item record

 

Search the repository


Browse

My Account

Usage Statistics