• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
SYRCLE_Rovers mini symposium sr animal studies 30082012
 

SYRCLE_Rovers mini symposium sr animal studies 30082012

on

  • 343 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
343
Views on SlideShare
343
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    SYRCLE_Rovers mini symposium sr animal studies 30082012 SYRCLE_Rovers mini symposium sr animal studies 30082012 Presentation Transcript

    • Systematic reviews ofclinical versus animal studies: Parallels and challenges Maroeska M. Rovers Acknowledgments: Carlijn Hooijmans, Malcolm Macleod, Michael Bracken
    • My background•  Archie Cochrane in 1979: "It is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organised a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomised controlled trials”•  1993: founding of Cochrane Collaboration•  Mission: to enable people to make well-informed decisions about healthcare
    • Why so important?
    • The growth in RCTs 35000 MEDLINE 30000 25000Number of Trials / Year . 20000 Cochrane CCTR 15000 10000 5000 Multicentre Trials 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year of Publication
    • Systematic review in detail Research question Extensive Structured literature reporting search Objective Synthesis of selection results process Objective data Critical extraction appraisal
    • How close is Cochrane’s dream?How many reviews in Cochrane?3,800 reviews with 6 trials each = 22,800How many reviews are needed?A. Trials: Number of RCTs over 500,000 So 5% included so farB. Questions: Over 11,000 diseases: If 2 treatments each; 22,000 “questions” So 17% of questions
    • What about animal studiesHow many systematic reviews on animal studies?248 reviews> 7 million animal studies
    • “Much animal research into potential treatments for humans is wastedbecause it is poorly conducted and not evaluated in SRs”
    • Potential sources of biasin animal studiesBias SolutionSelection bias RandomisationPerformance bias Allocation concealmentDetection bias Blinded outcome assessmentAttrition bias ITT/ reporting drop outs
    • Six interventions compared:3 similar outcomes3 discordant results
    • Quality of the studies included inthe SR BMJ, 2007
    • Consequences risk of biasMacleod et al. Stroke, 2008
    • Methodological problems1.  Heterogeneity in animal species and strains used2.  Different models of inducing illness with varying similarity to the human condition3.  Variation in dosis/intervention schedule4.  Variability in how animals are selected5.  Loss to follow-up not reported6.  Small groups with inadequate power
    • Methodological problems7.  Flawed statistical analyses (not taking into account confounding, no ITT)8.  Variety of outcomes (with uncertain relevance to human condition)9.  Length of follow-up may not correspond to disease latency inhumans10. External validity often nog thought of
    • Other challenges….
    • Plos. Med. 2005Solutions:•  Better powered evidence àLarger studies or low bias meta-analyses•  Registrations of studies
    • And remember… A systematic review does NOT replace a good quality study
    • Future directions•  Methodology •  Search strategies •  Analyses •  Individual animal data?•  Improving experimental designs •  Real sample size calculation •  Demanding highest quality standards in conducting and reporting •  Multicenter animal studies?•  Registry of animal studies