Surveying the literature from animal experiments: Systematic review and meta-analysis are important contributions

Malcolm Robert Macleod · Shah B J Ebrahim · Ian Roberts

34 citations0/0 files storedBMJ

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Animal testing and alternatives Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

EDITOR-We agree with Lemon and Dunnett that better methods of surveying the literature on animal experiments are needed,1 but we do not share their confidence in the utility of non-systematic reviews.In clinical trials, systematic review and meta-analysis have made important contributions to our understanding of sources of bias, and the quality of clinical trials has improved as a result.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 34 citations exist upstream.

Cited by

2010Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed 2022Development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of animal experiments in the field of traditional Chinese medicine

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.