Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
PLoS Biol ; 19(5): e3001177, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33951050

ABSTRACT

In an effort to better utilize published evidence obtained from animal experiments, systematic reviews of preclinical studies are increasingly more common-along with the methods and tools to appraise them (e.g., SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation [SYRCLE's] risk of bias tool). We performed a cross-sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews (2015-2018) and examined a range of epidemiological characteristics and used a 46-item checklist to assess reporting details. We identified 442 reviews published across 43 countries in 23 different disease domains that used 26 animal species. Reporting of key details to ensure transparency and reproducibility was inconsistent across reviews and within article sections. Items were most completely reported in the title, introduction, and results sections of the reviews, while least reported in the methods and discussion sections. Less than half of reviews reported that a risk of bias assessment for internal and external validity was undertaken, and none reported methods for evaluating construct validity. Our results demonstrate that a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent. Our study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews.


Subject(s)
Peer Review, Research/methods , Peer Review, Research/standards , Research Design/standards , Animal Experimentation/standards , Animals , Bias , Checklist/standards , Drug Evaluation, Preclinical/methods , Drug Evaluation, Preclinical/standards , Empirical Research , Epidemiologic Methods , Epidemiology/trends , Humans , Peer Review, Research/trends , Publications , Reproducibility of Results , Research Design/trends
2.
Elife ; 102021 05 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34028353

ABSTRACT

While high risk of failure is an inherent part of developing innovative therapies, it can be reduced by adherence to evidence-based rigorous research practices. Supported through the European Union's Innovative Medicines Initiative, the EQIPD consortium has developed a novel preclinical research quality system that can be applied in both public and private sectors and is free for anyone to use. The EQIPD Quality System was designed to be suited to boost innovation by ensuring the generation of robust and reliable preclinical data while being lean, effective and not becoming a burden that could negatively impact the freedom to explore scientific questions. EQIPD defines research quality as the extent to which research data are fit for their intended use. Fitness, in this context, is defined by the stakeholders, who are the scientists directly involved in the research, but also their funders, sponsors, publishers, research tool manufacturers, and collaboration partners such as peers in a multi-site research project. The essence of the EQIPD Quality System is the set of 18 core requirements that can be addressed flexibly, according to user-specific needs and following a user-defined trajectory. The EQIPD Quality System proposes guidance on expectations for quality-related measures, defines criteria for adequate processes (i.e. performance standards) and provides examples of how such measures can be developed and implemented. However, it does not prescribe any pre-determined solutions. EQIPD has also developed tools (for optional use) to support users in implementing the system and assessment services for those research units that successfully implement the quality system and seek formal accreditation. Building upon the feedback from users and continuous improvement, a sustainable EQIPD Quality System will ultimately serve the entire community of scientists conducting non-regulated preclinical research, by helping them generate reliable data that are fit for their intended use.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/standards , Drug Evaluation, Preclinical/standards , Research Design/standards , Cooperative Behavior , Data Accuracy , Diffusion of Innovation , Europe , Humans , Interdisciplinary Communication , Quality Control , Quality Improvement , Stakeholder Participation
3.
Nutrients ; 12(9)2020 Aug 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32825593

ABSTRACT

Aberrant fetal growth remains a leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality and is associated with a risk of developing non-communicable diseases later in life. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis combining human and animal studies to assess whether prenatal amino acid (AA) supplementation could be a promising approach to promote healthy fetal growth. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane libraries were searched to identify studies orally supplementing the following AA groups during gestation: (1) arginine family; (2) branched chain (BCAA); (3) methyl donors. Primary outcome was fetal/birth weight. 22 human and 89 animal studies were included in the systematic review. The arginine family, and especially arginine itself, was studied most. Our meta-analysis showed beneficial effects of arginine and (N-Carbamyl) glutamate (NCG), but not aspartic acid and citrulline on fetal/birth weight. However, no effects were reported when isonitrogenous control diet was included. BCAA and methyl donor supplementation did not affect fetal/birth weight. Arginine family supplementation, in particular arginine and NCG, improves fetal growth in complicated pregnancies. BCAA and methyl donor supplementation do not seem to be as promising to target fetal growth. Well controlled research in complicated pregnancies is needed before ruling out AA supplements or preferring arginine above other AAs.


Subject(s)
Amino Acids/administration & dosage , Amino Acids/pharmacology , Dietary Supplements , Fetal Development/drug effects , Fetal Growth Retardation/prevention & control , Maternal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena/physiology , Maternal-Fetal Exchange/physiology , Prenatal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena/physiology , Animals , Arginine/administration & dosage , Arginine/pharmacology , Birth Weight/drug effects , Female , Glutamic Acid/administration & dosage , Glutamic Acid/pharmacology , Humans , Pregnancy
4.
Eur J Pharmacol ; 759: 200-4, 2015 Jul 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25814253

ABSTRACT

Systematic reviews of animal studies have revealed serious limitations in internal and external validity strongly affecting the reliability of this research. In addition inter-species differences are likely to further limit the predictive value of animal research for the efficacy and tolerability of new drugs in humans. Important changes in the research process are needed to allow efficient translation of preclinical discoveries to the clinic, including improvements in the laboratory and publication practices involving animal research and early incorporation of human proof-of-concept studies to optimize the interpretation of animal data for its predictive value for humans and the design of clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Agents/therapeutic use , Cardiovascular Diseases/drug therapy , Disease Models, Animal , Drug Evaluation, Preclinical/methods , Translational Research, Biomedical/methods , Animals , Cardiovascular Agents/adverse effects , Humans , Species Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL