Surveying the literature from animal experiments

doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7498.977

BMJ 2005;330:977-978 (30 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7498.977

Editorial

Surveying the literature from animal experiments

Critical reviews may be helpful—not systematic ones

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The value of animal research for finding new treatments forhuman diseases is a continuing debate. The starting point ofthe debate must be the recognition of the past contributionsof animal experiments to our understanding of disease and existingtreatments. We can cite the major impact of research based onanimals in diseases such as polio, kidney transplantation, andParkinson's disease. Almost every form of conventional medicaltreatment (including most drugs, surgical treatments, and vaccines)was developed with the help of animal research.^1-3 Most of whatwe know about the basic workings of the body—in humansand animals—has come to us through two centuries of animalexperiments. Each decade of animal research has brought newerand deeper understanding.⁴ What we lack, however, are bettermethods of surveying the literature on animal experiments.

Curiosity about fundamental biological mechanisms has yieldeda rich harvest of useful knowledge. Although around 30% . . . [Full text of this article]

Roger Lemon, professor

Institute of Neurology, London WC1N 3BG (rlemon@ion.ucl.ac.uk)

Stephen B Dunnett, professor

School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3US

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Articles

Translating animal research into clinical benefit: Daniel G Hackam
BMJ 2007 334: 163-164. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Surveying the literature from animal experiments: Systematic review and meta-analysis are important contributions: Malcolm R Macleod, Shah Ebrahim, and Ian Roberts
BMJ 2005 331: 110. [Extract] [Full Text]

Surveying the literature from animal experiments: Avoidance of bias is objective of systematic reviews, not meta-analysis: Khalid S Khan and Luciano Mignini
BMJ 2005 331: 110-111. [Extract] [Full Text]

Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?: Pandora Pound, Shah Ebrahim, Peter Sandercock, Michael B Bracken, and Ian Roberts
BMJ 2004 328: 514-517. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

von Bohl, M., Kuijpers-Jagtman, A. M. (2009). Hyalinization during orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review on tissue reactions. Eur J Orthod 31: 30-36 [Abstract] [Full text]
Hackam, D. G (2007). Translating animal research into clinical benefit. BMJ 334: 163-164 [Full text]
Pereira, E A C, Aziz, T Z (2006). Parkinson's disease and primate research: past, present, and future.. Postgrad. Med. J. 82: 293-299 [Abstract] [Full text]
Macleod, M. R, Ebrahim, S., Roberts, I. (2005). Surveying the literature from animal experiments: Systematic review and meta-analysis are important contributions. BMJ 331: 110-110 [Full text]
Khan, K. S, Mignini, L. (2005). Surveying the literature from animal experiments: Avoidance of bias is objective of systematic reviews, not meta-analysis. BMJ 331: 110-111 [Full text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Nerves of steel: Alfred N Jackson
bmj.com, 1 May 2005 [Full text]
Drug safety tests and subsequent clinical experience: Peter Fletcher
bmj.com, 4 May 2005 [Full text]
Systematic review and meta-analysis make an important contribution to surveying the literature from animal experiments: Malcolm R Macleod, et al.
bmj.com, 10 May 2005 [Full text]
Avoidance of bias is the objective of systematic review, not meta-analysis: Khalid S. Khan, et al.
bmj.com, 1 Jun 2005 [Full text]