Technological advances in preclinical meta-research
[...]outcomes of interest may range from protein levels, drug concentration, to behavioural outcomes, with each experiment reporting key experimental characteristics in different ways.Table 1 Glossary of terms and abbreviations used throughout this article Automation tool ‘Automation tool’ refers to...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | BMJ open science 2021-07, Vol.5 (1), p.e100131-e100131 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | [...]outcomes of interest may range from protein levels, drug concentration, to behavioural outcomes, with each experiment reporting key experimental characteristics in different ways.Table 1 Glossary of terms and abbreviations used throughout this article Automation tool ‘Automation tool’ refers to a software application with a user interface that fully or partially automates a task conducted by systematic reviewers.15’ Camarades Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies. Preclinical The term ‘preclinical’ in this context refers to primary experiments conducted in animals to test treatments for human health or to model mechanisms for human health Systematic review A systematic review is a review that uses explicit, systematic methods to collate and synthesize findings of studies that address a clearly formulated question2 SyRF CAMARADES-NC3Rs Systematic Review Facility; a free-to-use web-based software/platform to support the conduct of preclinical animal systematic reviews. Through these reviews knowledge gaps can be identified, methodological quality improved, unnecessary duplication of experiments can be avoided, and clinical trial design can be informed.10 11 They increase the value of research and reduce research waste.12 Despite their utility, these reviews are time and resource intensive and as a result rarely up to date at the time of publishing as they cannot continuously incorporate new studies, limiting their longer-term applicability.13 Additionally, they are predominantly carried out by or require large amounts of support from systematic review experts.14 These barriers limit the feasibility of conducting a preclinical systematic review.15 To improve accessibility, feasibility and utility there has been a need to develop technological tools that can assist in the synthesis of evidence across the board. Past For over 20 years, several groups have been conducting systematic reviews of preclinical research. Since 2005, the Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) group have both conducted their own reviews in preclinical models of human diseases in focussing on efficacy of candidate drugs, and provided support for other researchers wishing to use this approach. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2398-8703 2398-8703 |
DOI: | 10.1136/bmjos-2020-100131 |