medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-297X (Print)

2015, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Cubana Estomatol 2015; 52 (2)

Pre-clinical biomedical research

Morales ND

Language: Spanish
References: 54
Page: 171-187
PDF size: 145.88 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: a historical analysis would reveal that the use of animals as test subjects has been both effective and essential. Such a practice has served both to save lives and to answer a variety of biomedical questions.
Objective: carry out a bibliographic review about preclinical biomedical research.
Methods: abibliographic review was conducted about preclinical biomedical research on the Internet. Most of the papers included in the search have been published in the last five years. An evaluation was performed of international high impact journals from the Web of Sciences dealing with the subject (32 journals), as well as two Cuban journals. Databases from reference systems such as MEDLINE, PubMed and SciELO were consulted with the aid of search terms like " animal research", "preclinical investigation", "biomodels", "laboratory animals", "translational medicine" and their Spanish counterparts. The papers included were in English, Portuguese or Spanish. Of the 136 papers obtained, the reviewers selected the 53 which approached the study subject in a more comprehensive manner. One book was also reviewed.
Data analysis and integration: an analysis of the representativeness of papers in the scientific journals where they were published showed that 9.4 % corresponded to the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, and the same percentage to PloS Biology. The remaining papers were evenly distributed among the other journals. Most studies suggest that biomodels are an effective tool in scientific research, but they should be correctly designed, for it is common to find bias in the internal and external validity of the research, leading to errors in scientific publications.
Conclusions: lack of knowledge about characteristics inherent to biomodels, preclinical research, methodological design and the very development of the research may lead to errors in the analysis and publication of results, affecting the quality of the research and contributing to the frequent scarcity of reliable animal studies.


REFERENCES

  1. Greek R, Pippus A, Hansen LA. The Nuremberg Code subverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling. BMC Med Ethics. 2012;13:6.

  2. Ramalli EL, Ho W, Alves M, Rocha EM. Progress in animal experimentation ethics. A case study from a Brazilian medical school and from the international medical literature. Acta Cir Bras. 2012;27(9):659-63.

  3. Fernández Hernández J, Heuze de Icaza YM. El programa interno para el cuidado y uso de los animales de laboratorio en las instituciones biomédicas docentes, de investigación científica e industria farmacéutica. Acta Bioethica [Internet]. 2007 [citado 2 feb 2014];13(1). Disponible en: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1726- 569X2007000100003

  4. Krauth D, Anglemyer A, Philipps R, Bero L. Nonindustry-Sponsored Preclinical Studies on Statins Yield Greater Efficacy Estimates Than Industry-Sponsored Studies: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(1):e1001770.

  5. Briel M, Müller KF, Meerpohl JJ, von Elm E, Lang B, Motschall E, et al. Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2013;2:23.

  6. Concepción Alfonso ÁR, de la Peña Pino R, García Capote J. Acercamiento al accionar ético-moral del científico que trabaja con animales de experimentación. Acta bioeth. 2007 [citado 2 feb 2014];13(1). Disponible en: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S1726-569X20070 00100002&script=sci_arttext

  7. Vandamme TF. Use of rodents as models of human diseases. Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2014;6(1):2-9.

  8. Quinn RW. Animal models for bench to bedside translation of regenerative cardiac constructs. Progress in Pediatric Cardiology. 2013;35:91-4.

  9. Parra-Blanco A, González N, González R, Ortiz-Fernández-Sordo J, Ordieres C. Animal models for endoscopic training: do we really need them? Endoscopy. 2013 Jun;45(6):478-84.

  10. MacCallum CJ. Reporting Animal Studies: Good Science and a Duty of Care. PLoS Biol. 2010 June;8(6):e1000413.

  11. Hooijmans CR, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Progress in Using Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies to Improve Translational Research. PLoS Med. 2013 July;10(7):e1001482.

  12. Henderson VC, Kimmelman J, Fergusson D, Grimshaw JM, Hackam DG. Threats to Validity in the Design and Conduct of Preclinical Efficacy Studies: A Systematic Review of Guidelines for In Vivo Animal Experiments. PLoS Med. 2013 July;10(7):e1001489.

  13. Leenaars M, Hooijmans CR, van Veggel N, ter Riet G, Leeflang M, Hooft L, van der Wilt GJ, et al. A step-by-step guide to systematically identify all relevant animal studies. Lab Anim. 2012 January;46(1):24-31.

  14. Hooijmans CR, Tillema A, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed. Lab Anim. 2010 July;44(3):170-5.

  15. van der Worp HB, Macleod MR. Preclinical studies of human disease: Time to take methodological quality seriously. Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology. 2011;51(4):449-50.

  16. Greek R, Rice MJ. Animal models and conserved processes. Theor Biol Med Model. 2012;9:40.

  17. Varga OE, Hansen AK, Sandøe P, Olsson IA. Validating Animal Models for Preclinical Research: A Scientific and Ethical Discussion. Altern Lab Anim. 2010;38:245-8.

  18. Wittenburg LA, Gustafson DL. Optimizing preclinical study design in oncology research. Chem Biol Interact. 2011;190(2-3):73-8.

  19. Milani-Nejad N, Janssen PM. Small and large animal models in cardiac contraction research: Advantages and disadvantages. Pharmacol Ther. 2014;141(3):235-49.

  20. Kumar V, Bhat ZA, Kumar D. Animal models of anxiety: A comprehensive review. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2013;68(2):175-83.

  21. McGonigle P, Ruggeri B. Animal models of human disease: Challenges in enabling translation. Biochem Pharmacol. Biochemical Pharmacology. 2014;87(1):162-71.

  22. Stewart AM, Kalueff AV. Developing better and more valid animal models of brain disorders. Behav Brain Res. 2013. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.12.024

  23. Monteiro R, Brandau R, Gomes WJ, Braile DM. Tendências em experimentação animal. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc [Internet]. 2009 [citado 2 feb 2014];24(4). Disponible en: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102- 76382009000500012

  24. Sekimizu N, Paudel A, Hamamoto H. Animal welfare and use of silkworm as a model animal. Drug Discov Ther. Drug Discoveries & Therapeutics. 2012;6(4):226-9.

  25. Wang Y, Li DD, Jiang YY, Mylonakis E. Utility of insects for studying human pathogens and evaluating new antimicrobial agents. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2013;135:1-25.

  26. Sikes RS, Paul E. Fundamental Differences between Wildlife and Biomedical Research. ILAR J. 2013;54(1):5-13.

  27. Buckley LA, Chapman K, Burns-Naas LA, Todd MD, Martin PL, Lansita JA. Considerations Regarding Nonhuman Primate Use in Safety Assessment of Biopharmaceuticals. Int J Toxicol. 2011;30(5):583-90.

  28. Henze DA, Urban MO. Large animal models for pain therapeutic development. En: Translational Pain Research: From Mouse to Man. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2010.

  29. Lukács E, Magyari B, Tóth L, Petrási Z, Repa I, Koller A, Horváth I. Overview of large animal myocardial infarction models (review). Acta Physiol Hung. 2012;99(4):365-81.

  30. Mak IW, Evaniew N, Ghert M. Lost in translation: animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment. Am J Transl Res. 2014;6(2):114-8.

  31. Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2009;4:2.

  32. Galvizu Díaz K, Villar Badía Y, Plasencia Pérez M. Algunas consideraciones bioéticas en la experimentación en animales, seres humanos y trasplantología. Rev Hum Med. 2011;11(3):388-412.

  33. Victoria Amador MC, Morón Rodríguez FJ. Bioética en experimentación animal para validar usos de plantas medicinales en el Laboratorio Central de Farmacología. Rev Cubana Plant Med [Internet]. 2010 [citado 2 feb 2014];15(3). Disponible en: http://www.bvs.sld.cu/revistas/pla/vol_15_3_10/pla08310.htm

  34. van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Porritt MJ, Rewell S, O'Collins V, et al. Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies? PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000245.

  35. Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, Bradley EW, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature. 2012;490(7419):187-91.

  36. Dothel G, Vasina V, Barbara G, De Ponti F. Animal models of chemically induced intestinal inflammation: Predictivity and ethical issues. Pharmacol Ther. 2013;139(1):71-86.

  37. Lamontagne F, Briel M, Duffett M, Fox-Robichaud A, Cook DJ, Guyatt G, et al. Systematic review of reviews including animal studies addressing therapeutic interventions for sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(12):2401-8.

  38. Kimmelman J, London AJ. Predicting Harms and Benefits in Translational Trials: Ethics, Evidence, and Uncertainty. PLoS Med. 2011;8(3):e1001010.

  39. Hooijmans C, de Vries R, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. The Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) for improved design, reporting and scientific quality of animal studies GSPC versus ARRIVE guidelines. Lab Anim. 2011;45(1):61.

  40. Baker D, Lidster K, SottomayorA, Amor S. Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(1):e1001756.

  41. Ledford H. Translational research: 4 ways to fix the clinical trial. Nature 2011;477(7366):526-8.

  42. Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PMW, Howells DW, Macleod MR. Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major Overstatement of Efficacy. PLoS Biol. 2010;8(3):e1000344.

  43. Korevaar DA, Hooft L, ter Riet G. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim. 2011;45(4):225-30.

  44. Eisen JA, Ganley E, MacCallum CJ. Open Science and Reporting Animal Studies: Who's Accountable? PLoS Biol. 2014;12(1):e1001757.

  45. ter Riet G, Korevaar DA, Leenaars M, Sterk PJ, Van Noorden CJF, Bouter LM. Publication Bias in Laboratory Animal Research: A Survey on Magnitude, Drivers, Consequences and Potential Solutions. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e43404.

  46. Macleod M. Why animal research needs to improve. Nature 2011;477(7366):511.

  47. Rice ASC, Morland R, Huang W, Currie GL, Sena ES, Macleod MR. Transparency in the reporting of in vivo pre-clinical pain research: The relevance and implications of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. Scandinavian Journal of Pain 2013;4(2):58-62.

  48. Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MFW, Cuthill IC, Fry D, et al. Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals. PLoS One. 2009;4(11):e7824.

  49. Greek R, Menache A. Systematic Reviews of Animal Models: Methodology versus Epistemology. Int J Med Sci. 2013;10(3):206-21.

  50. Berglundh T, Stavropoulos A, Working Group 1 of the VIII European Workshop on Periodontology. Preclinical in vivo research in implant dentistry. Consensus of the eighth European workshop on periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39(12):1-5.

  51. Vignoletti F, Abrahamsson I. Quality of reporting of experimental research in implant dentistry. Critical aspects in design, outcome assessment and model validation. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39(12):6-27.

  52. Schwarz F, Iglhaut G, Becker J. Quality assessment of reporting of animal studies on pathogenesis and treatment of peri-implant mucositis and periimplantitis. A systematic review using the ARRIVE guidelines. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39(12):63-72.

  53. Stadlinger B, Pourmand P, Locher MC, Schulz MC. Systematic review of animal models for the study of implant integration, assessing the influence of material, surface and design. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39(12):28-36.

  54. Thoma DS, Martin IS, Mühlemann S, Jung RE. Systematic review of pre-clinical models assessing implant integration in locally compromised sites and/or systemically compromised animals. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39(12):37-62.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com