Letter

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

BMJ 2005; 331 doi: 10.1136/bmj.331.7508.110-b (Published 7 July 2005)
Cite this as: BMJ 2005;331:110.3

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Malcolm R Macleod, specialist registrar, neurology (malcolm@apoptosis.freeserve.co.uk),
  2. Shah Ebrahim, professor of epidemiology of ageing,
  3. Ian Roberts, professor
  1. Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU
  2. Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR
  3. Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT

    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. We …

    Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

    Subscribe

    Article access

    Article access for 1 day

    Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

    The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

    * Prices do not include VAT

    Rapid responses

    THIS WEEK'S POLL

    BMJ most popular