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

doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7508.110-b

From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients
We are open for entries!

Online learning

BMJ Learning

High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more

Courses and Qualifications

BMJ Masterclasses

BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more

Exam Preparation

The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more

onExamination

Search all BMJ comment articles:

From

Limit by

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

Malcolm R Macleod, specialist registrar, neurology (malcolm@apoptosis.freeserve.co.uk),
Shah Ebrahim, professor of epidemiology of ageing,
Ian Roberts, professor

Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU
Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR
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 …