A protocol format for the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies

Rob B. M. de Vries, Carlijn R. Hooijmans, Miranda W. Langendam, Judith van Luijk, Marlies Leenaars, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, Kimberley E. Wever
{"title":"A protocol format for the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies","authors":"Rob B. M. de Vries,&nbsp;Carlijn R. Hooijmans,&nbsp;Miranda W. Langendam,&nbsp;Judith van Luijk,&nbsp;Marlies Leenaars,&nbsp;Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga,&nbsp;Kimberley E. Wever","doi":"10.1002/ebm2.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Systematic reviews are an important method to support evidence-based decisions in healthcare (research). Although not yet as common as clinical systematic reviews, the number of systematic reviews of animal studies has been increasing steadily in recent years. An important method to promote high-quality systematic reviews is to pre-specify the review methodology in a protocol, before the conduct of the systematic review itself. In contrast to clinical systematic reviews, a standard protocol format for systematic reviews of animal studies is not yet available. Here, we present a protocol format tailored to the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies (i.e. systematic reviews of animal experiments studying the efficacy and/or safety of interventions intended for use in human patients). In analogy to the Cochrane review protocol, the format helps authors predefine the methodological approach of their systematic review, from research question to data synthesis. We recommend that authors prospectively complete and agree on the protocol, and register and/or publish it to allow feedback on the proposed methodology and to avoid the introduction of bias during the review process. Opportunities for obtaining feedback, and for registration and publication of review protocols are also discussed.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":90826,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based preclinical medicine","volume":"2 1","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ebm2.7","citationCount":"201","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based preclinical medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ebm2.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 201

Abstract

Systematic reviews are an important method to support evidence-based decisions in healthcare (research). Although not yet as common as clinical systematic reviews, the number of systematic reviews of animal studies has been increasing steadily in recent years. An important method to promote high-quality systematic reviews is to pre-specify the review methodology in a protocol, before the conduct of the systematic review itself. In contrast to clinical systematic reviews, a standard protocol format for systematic reviews of animal studies is not yet available. Here, we present a protocol format tailored to the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies (i.e. systematic reviews of animal experiments studying the efficacy and/or safety of interventions intended for use in human patients). In analogy to the Cochrane review protocol, the format helps authors predefine the methodological approach of their systematic review, from research question to data synthesis. We recommend that authors prospectively complete and agree on the protocol, and register and/or publish it to allow feedback on the proposed methodology and to avoid the introduction of bias during the review process. Opportunities for obtaining feedback, and for registration and publication of review protocols are also discussed.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
动物干预研究系统综述的编制、注册和出版的协议格式
系统评价是支持医疗保健(研究)循证决策的重要方法。尽管还没有临床系统综述那么常见,但近年来动物研究的系统综述数量一直在稳步增加。促进高质量系统审查的一个重要方法是在进行系统审查之前,在协议中预先规定审查方法。与临床系统综述相比,动物研究系统综述的标准方案格式尚不可用。在这里,我们提出了一种专门针对动物干预研究系统综述的准备、注册和发布的方案格式(即研究拟用于人类患者的干预措施的疗效和/或安全性的动物实验的系统综述)。与Cochrane综述协议类似,该格式有助于作者预先确定系统综述的方法论方法,从研究问题到数据合成。我们建议作者前瞻性地完成并同意该方案,并注册和/或发布该方案,以允许对拟议的方法进行反馈,并避免在审查过程中引入偏见。还讨论了获得反馈以及注册和发布审查协议的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Improving our understanding of the in vivo modelling of psychotic disorders: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Study protocol – A systematic review and meta‐analysis of hypothermia in experimental traumatic brain injury: Why have promising animal studies not been replicated in pragmatic clinical trials? Protocol for a systematic review of effect sizes and statistical power in the rodent fear conditioning literature From a mouse: systematic analysis reveals limitations of experiments testing interventions in Alzheimer's disease mouse models Protocol for meta-analysis of temperature reduction in animal models of cardiac arrest
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1