Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol.
Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/2046-4053-2-23
复制
发表时间：
2013-04-27
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
OPEN Consortium
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Briel M;Müller KF;Meerpohl JJ;von Elm E;Lang B;Motschall E;Gloy V;Lamontagne F;Schwarzer G;Bassler D;OPEN Consortium
临床前研究，特别是活体动物实验的系统评价和荟萃分析可以影响临床护理。发表偏差是系统评价和荟萃分析中有效性的主要威胁之一。以前的经验研究表明，直到2010年，系统审查和荟萃分析已经变得更加普遍，并发现了方法严谨性有所妥协的证据，并有改进的趋势。我们的目标是全面总结和更新动物研究的系统评价和荟萃分析的证据基础，特别是它们的方法学质量和对出版物偏见的评估。这项系统评价的目标如下：·调查迄今已发表的动物研究系统评价的流行病学。·审查动物研究的系统评价和荟萃分析的方法论特点，特别注意对发表偏倚的评估。·通过检查临床研究对系统评价的引用，调查动物研究系统评价对临床研究的影响。符合系统评价条件的研究包括总结活体动物实验的系统评价和荟萃分析，目的是评价动物证据以告知人类健康。我们将排除全基因组关联研究和动物实验，主要目的是了解更多关于基础生物学、身体功能或行为的知识。除了纳入其他经验性研究确定的系统评价和荟萃分析外，我们还将从2009年至2013年1月系统地搜索Ovid Medline、Embase、TOXNET和Science Direct，以寻找更多符合条件的研究，而不受语言限制。两名独立工作的评审员将评估标题、摘要和全文的合格性，并从纳入的研究中提取相关数据。数据报告将涉及对元分析和系统审查的描述性总结。结果预计将在2013年晚些时候公开，并可能成为建议的基础，以提高动物研究及其在临床护理方面的使用的系统审查和荟萃分析的质量。
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. 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. 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.