Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: why perform them and how to appraise them critically
Open accessAbstract
The use of systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies has become more common, including those of studies describing the modeling of cerebrovascular diseases. Empirical evidence suggests that too many preclinical experiments lack methodological rigor, and this leads to inflated treatment effects. The aim of this review is to describe the concepts of systematic review and meta-analysis and consider how these tools may be used to provide empirical evidence to spur the field to improve the rigor of the conduct and reporting of preclinical research akin to their use in improving the conduct and reporting of randomized controlled trials in clinical research. As with other research domains, systematic reviews are subject to bias. Therefore, we have also suggested guidance for their conduct, reporting, and critical appraisal.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Systematic reviews can inform the choice of animal model by providing a comprehensive overview of the models used along with their benefits and limitations.
“They can also inform the choice of animal model by providing a comprehensive overview of the models used along with their benefits and limitations [160–162].”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [162]
The Introduction says systematic reviews provide a less biased summary of preclinical evidence, and the ‘External and Construct Validity’ section gives an example of a review identifying which animals predominate in stroke studies. That section also discusses limitations in how animal models represent human disease. Our copy does not say that reviews provide a comprehensive account of the benefits and limitations of each model or explicitly recommend them for choosing a model. (LLM, conf=0.81)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 264
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- [2]O'Collins VE Macleod MR Donnan GA Horky LL van der Worp BH Howells DW 1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke. Ann Neurol 2006; 59: 467– 477. 16453316
- [3]Schulz KF Chalmers I Hayes RJ Altman DG Empirical-evidence of bias—dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408– 412. 7823387
- [7]Crossley NA Sena E Goehler J Horn J van der Worp B Bath PMW Empirical evidence of bias in the design of experimental stroke studies — a metaepide-miologic approach. Stroke 2008; 39: 929– 934. 18239164
- [8]Sena ES Macleod MR Concordance between laboratory and clinical drug efficacy: lessons from systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2007; 38: 502.
- [11]Vesterinen HM Sena ES Ffrench-Constant C Williams A Chandran S Macleod MR Improving the translational hit of experimental treatments in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2010; 16: 1044– 1055. 20685763
- [12]van der Worp HB Sena ES Donnan GA Howells DW Macleod MR Hypothermia in animal models of acute ischaemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain 2007; 130: 3063– 3074. 17478443
- [14]Sena ES Briscoe CL Howells DW Donnan GA Sandercock PA Macleod MR Factors affecting the apparent efficacy and safety of tissue plasminogen activator in thrombotic occlusion models of stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2010; 30: 1905– 1913. 20648038 PMC3002882
- [15]Henderson VC Kimmelman J Fergusson D Grimshaw JM Hackam DG Threats to validity in the design and conduct of preclinical efficacy studies: a systematic review of guidelines for in vivo animal experiments. PLoS Med 2013; 10: e1001489. 23935460 PMC3720257
- [16]van der Worp HB Howells DW Sena ES Porritt MJ Rewell S O'Collins V Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med 2010; 7: e1000245. 20361020 PMC2846855
- [18]Ioannidis JPA Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 2008; 19: 640– 648. 18633328
- [19]Mignini LE Khan KS Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 10. 16533396 PMC1435907
- [20]Peters JL Sutton AJ Jones DR Rushton L Abrams KR A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B 2006; 41: 1245– 1258. 16923604
- [22]Garg AX Hackam D Tonelli M Systematic review and meta-analysis: when one study is just not enough. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 3: 253– 260. 18178786
- [23]Meline T Selecting studies for systematic review: inclusion and exclusion criteria. Contemp Issues in Commun Sci Disord 2006; 33: 21– 27.
- [24]Slavin RE Best-evidence synthesis: why less is more. Educ Res 1987; 16: 15– 16.
- [25]Egger M Zellweger-Z + ñhner T Schneider M Junker C Lengeler C Antes G Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997; 350: 326– 329. 9251637
- [26]Vesterinen HM Sena ES Egan KJ Hirst TC Churolov L Currie GL Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: a practical guide. J Neurosci Methods 2014; 221: 92– 102. 24099992
- [28]Kilkenny C Browne WJ Cuthill IC Emerson M Altman DG Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2010; 8: e1000412. 20613859 PMC2893951
- [30]Egan KJ Sena ES Vesterinen HM Macleod MR Developing our understanding of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease using a systematically identified dataset of interventions tested in transgenic mouse models. Eur J Neurol 2012; 19: 460.
- [31]Rooke ED Vesterinen HM Sena ES Egan KJ Macleod MR Dopamine agonists in animal models of Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2011; 17: 313– 320. 21376651
- [32]Frantzias J Sena ES Macleod MR Salman RA-S Treatment of intracerebral hemorrhage in animal models: meta-analysis. Ann Neurol 2011; 69: 389– 399. 21387381
- [33]Jerndal M Forsberg K Sena ES Macleod MR O'Collins VE Linden T A systematic review and meta-analysis of erythropoietin in experimental stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2010; 30: 961– 968. 20040929 PMC2949185
- [34]Sena E Wheble P Sandercock P Macleod M Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of tirilazad in experimental stroke. Stroke 2007; 38: 388– 394. 17204689
- Authors
- Sena, E. S., Currie, G. L., McCann, S. K., Macleod, M. R., & Howells, D. W.
- Affiliations
- Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health (AU)
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Sena, Emily S
- Venue
- Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-02-19
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 737-742
- ISSN
- 0271-678X (ISSN-L)
- 1559-7016
- PMC
- PMC4013765
- OpenAlex
- W2140030055
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 6
- FWCI
- 5.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC/L000970/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Keywords
- systematic reviews, meta-analysis, preclinical research, research rigor, reporting quality, critical appraisal, bias in systematic reviews, translational research
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Bias, Stroke, Translational Research, Biomedical
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
