Abstract

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.

Highlights

  • Animal models are invaluable tools for enriching our understanding of the mechanisms and etiology of human diseases

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis have provided empirical evidence that too many preclinical experiments lack methodological rigor, and this leads to inflated treatment effects

  • There is no guarantee that improvements in the validity of preclinical animal studies and reduced publication bias will improve the translational hit of interventions from bench to bedside

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Animal models are invaluable tools for enriching our understanding of the mechanisms and etiology of human diseases. It is clear that there are limitations to the translational paradigm as it currently exists. It is clear from the sheer volume of preclinical research that structured methods are required to make objective sense of the available data. Systematic review and meta-analysis are useful tools which can address some, but not all, of the challenges of translational stroke research. They provide a less biased summary of research findings and allow judgement of both the range of available evidence (and the external validity) and the likelihood that conclusions are at risk of bias (the internal validity).

Objectives
Methods
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.