Systematic reviews of animal studies Malcolm Macleod.
-
Upload
maximilian-hall -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Systematic reviews of animal studies Malcolm Macleod.
Systematic reviews of animal studies
Malcolm Macleod
Why do systematic reviews of animal studies?
• To summarise existing data
• To help design clinical trials
• To understand where evidence is lacking
• To understand the limitations of animal models
Basic requirements
• Understanding the model – or knowing someone who does
• Clear a priori hypotheses
• A clear search strategy with inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Information and data management
The importance of hypotheses
• Observational research
• Susceptible to identification of statistically significant but biologically meaningless spurious associations
• If there isn’t a question for which you wish to know the answer, why are you doing it?
Examples
• “Hypothermia improves outcome in animal models of stroke”
• “The efficacy of hypothermia in animal models of stroke depends on the degree of cooling”
• “Evidence for the efficacy of NXY-059 is confounded by poor study quality”
• “The evidence for efficacy of stroke dugs in animals is confounded by publication bias”
Search strategy• What are you looking for …
– Controlled studies testing the effect of hypothermia in an animal model of focal cerebral ischaemia brought about by occlusion of a cerebral artery, where outcome was measured as infarct size or neurobehavioural score.
• Exclusion criteria– hypothermia was accomplished with use of a pharmacological agent
that may also have an intrinsic neuroprotective property; – cooling was used to counteract (spontaneous) hyperthermia after
MCAO; – brain cooling lasted <10 min, for example to counteract heating in
models of photochemically induced cerebral infarction; – data were presented in a way not suitable for use in a meta-analysis
(e.g. no information on group size, mean or variance); or if – mortality was the only outcome measure.
Example search strategyStudies of hypothermia in animal models of acute ischaemic stroke
were identified from …
(i) PubMed, EMBASE and BIOSIS up till December 31, 200> with the search strategy [[[<cerebral> OR <brain> OR <neuron> OR <neuronal> OR <nervous>] AND [<ischemia> OR <ischaemia>]] OR <stroke>] AND [<hypothermia> OR <temperature>] (limit: animals)
(ii) hand searching of abstracts of scientific meetings of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, the International Stroke Conference [‘Joint (International) Conference on Stroke and Cerebral Circulation’ before 2000] and the European Stroke Conference during the same time period;
(iii) reference lists of identified publications; and (iv) requests to authors of identified publications
Source selection
• Download search results to reference management system (eg RefMan)
• 2 investigators independently select sources against inclusion/ exclusion criteria
• May have to retrieve full text
• Discrepancies resolved by negotiation or in discussion with third investigator
Data extraction
• Publication meta-data
Data extraction
• Publication meta-data
• Outcome data
Data cleaning
Data analysis
• Standardised mean difference analysis• Weighted mean difference analysis• Normalised mean difference analysis
• Fixed Effects• Random Effects
• Meta-regression
difference
s.d. e.s. = difference/s.d.“sd units”
SMD
0%unlesioned
100%lesioned
d1
e.s. = d1/100%“percent improvement in outcome”
NMD
n1 n2
e.s. = n1-n2“real” unitsWMD
0 mm3 250 mm3
Testing significance
• Partitioning of heterogeneity:
– Observed heterogeneity = within group heterogeneity + between group heterogeneity
– Test against chi squared distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom
• Observational, so set high statistical bar
Data analysis
Demonstration
So, what can it do …?
• Describe a literature ….
Randomisation
Blinded Outcome
Assessment
Sample Size calculation
Stroke 36% 29% 3%
MND 31% 20% <1%
PD 12% 15% 0%
EAE 2% 11% 0%
Glioma 14% 0% 0%
Estimate efficacy …
• Hypothermia– 101 papers– 277 experiments– 3353 animals
Describe efficacy in subgroups…
Show potential sources of bias …
NXY 0599 publications
29 experiments408 animals
Improved outcome by 44% (35-53%)
Illustrate publication bias …
All
stud
ies
Nic
otin
amid
eT
hrom
boly
ticN
XY
-059
NO
S d
onor
Nos
Inhi
bito
rF
K50
6H
ypot
herm
iaM
elat
onin
Est
roge
nsT
irila
zad
IL1-
RA
Effi
cacy
0
20
30
40
50
60ObservedAdjusted
991 publications
Provide evidence to change practice …
1. Animals2. Sample size calculation 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria4. Randomization5. Allocation concealment6. Reporting of animals excluded from analysis 7. Blinded assessment of outcome 8. Reporting potential conflicts of interest and study funding
Further resources
• http://www.camarades.info
• http://www.camarades.info/index_files/papers.htm
• The CAMARADES podcast …– http://www.camarades.info/index_files/podcas
ts/podcast.xml