Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 May;34(5):737-42.
doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.2014.28. Epub 2014 Feb 19.

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: why perform them and how to appraise them critically

Emily S Sena  1 , Gillian L Currie  2 , Sarah K McCann  3 , Malcolm R Macleod  2 , David W Howells  3
Affiliations

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of preclinical studies: why perform them and how to appraise them critically

Emily S Sena et al. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2014 May.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The effect of the mean sample size on the estimate of effect size for neurobehavioural score in models of encephalomyelitis. The horizontal gray bar represents the 95% confidence limits for the summary estimate of effect. The vertical error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals for the individual estimate. The widths of the bar represent the log of the number of animals contributing to that comparison.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Publication bias. Plots describing (A) funnel plot, (B) Egger regression, and (C) trim-and-fill.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Glass G.Meta-analysis at 25 http://www.gvglassinfo/papers/meta25.html2013
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:1358–1361. - PubMed
    1. Bonnie S, Martin R. Understanding controlled trials: why are randomised controlled trials important. BMJ. 1998;316:201. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types