Hild Bernard Friedrich, Brüschweiler David, Hild Sophia Theodora Katharina, Bugajska Julia, von Wyl Viktor, Rosso Marianna, Wever Kimberley Elaine, Furrer Eva, Ineichen Benjamin Victor
Center for Reproducible Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
J Transl Med. 2025 Jan 6;23(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s12967-024-05992-0.
Animal systematic reviews are critical to inform translational research. Despite their growing popularity, there is a notable lack of information on their quality, scope, and geographical distribution over time. Addressing this gap is important to maintain their effectiveness in fostering medical advancements.
This study aimed to assess the quality and demographic trends of animal systematic reviews in neuroscience, including changes over time.
We performed an umbrella review of animal systematic reviews, searching Medline and Embase for reviews until January 27, 2023. A data mining method was developed and validated to automatically evaluate the quality of these reviews.
From 18'065 records identified, we included 1'358 animal systematic reviews in our study. These reviews commonly focus on translational research but with notable topical gaps such as schizophrenia, other psychiatric disorders, and brain tumours. They originate from 64 countries, with the United States, China, the UK, Brazil, and Iran being the most prolific. The automated quality assessment indicated high reliability, with F1-scores over 80% for most criteria. Overall, the reviews were of high quality and the quality improved over time. However, many systematic reviews did not report a pre-registered study protocol. Reviews with a pre-registered protocol generally scored higher in quality. No significant differences in quality were observed between countries.
Animal systematic reviews in neuroscience are of overall of high quality. Our study highlights specific areas for enhancement such as the recommended pre-publication of study protocols. It also identifies under-represented topics that could benefit from further investigation to inform translational research. Such measures can contribute to the effective translation of animal research findings to clinical applications.
动物系统评价对于为转化研究提供信息至关重要。尽管其越来越受欢迎,但随着时间的推移,关于其质量、范围和地理分布的信息明显不足。弥补这一差距对于维持其在促进医学进步方面的有效性很重要。
本研究旨在评估神经科学领域动物系统评价的质量和人口统计学趋势,包括随时间的变化。
我们对动物系统评价进行了一项汇总分析,在Medline和Embase中检索截至2023年1月27日的评价。开发并验证了一种数据挖掘方法,以自动评估这些评价的质量。
从识别出的18065条记录中,我们在研究中纳入了1358篇动物系统评价。这些评价通常侧重于转化研究,但存在明显的主题空白,如精神分裂症、其他精神疾病和脑肿瘤。它们来自64个国家,美国、中国、英国、巴西和伊朗是最多产的国家。自动质量评估显示可靠性较高,大多数标准的F1分数超过80%。总体而言,这些评价质量较高,且质量随时间有所提高。然而,许多系统评价未报告预先注册的研究方案。有预先注册方案的评价通常质量得分更高。各国之间在质量上未观察到显著差异。
神经科学领域的动物系统评价总体质量较高。我们的研究突出了需要改进的特定领域,如建议在发表前公布研究方案。它还确定了代表性不足的主题,这些主题可能受益于进一步研究以为转化研究提供信息。这些措施有助于将动物研究结果有效转化为临床应用。