Clinical relevance assessment of animal preclinical research (RAA) tool: development and explanation.
Animal studies
Clinical relevance
Experimental studies
Preclinical studies
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
16
06
2020
accepted:
09
12
2020
entrez:
11
2
2021
pubmed:
12
2
2021
medline:
12
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Only a small proportion of preclinical research (research performed in animal models prior to clinical trials in humans) translates into clinical benefit in humans. Possible reasons for the lack of translation of the results observed in preclinical research into human clinical benefit include the design, conduct, and reporting of preclinical studies. There is currently no formal domain-based assessment of the clinical relevance of preclinical research. To address this issue, we have developed a tool for the assessment of the clinical relevance of preclinical studies, with the intention of assessing the likelihood that therapeutic preclinical findings can be translated into improvement in the management of human diseases. We searched the EQUATOR network for guidelines that describe the design, conduct, and reporting of preclinical research. We searched the references of these guidelines to identify further relevant publications and developed a set of domains and signalling questions. We then conducted a modified Delphi-consensus to refine and develop the tool. The Delphi panel members included specialists in evidence-based (preclinical) medicine specialists, methodologists, preclinical animal researchers, a veterinarian, and clinical researchers. A total of 20 Delphi-panel members completed the first round and 17 members from five countries completed all three rounds. This tool has eight domains (construct validity, external validity, risk of bias, experimental design and data analysis plan, reproducibility and replicability of methods and results in the same model, research integrity, and research transparency) and a total of 28 signalling questions and provides a framework for researchers, journal editors, grant funders, and regulatory authorities to assess the potential clinical relevance of preclinical animal research. We have developed a tool to assess the clinical relevance of preclinical studies. This tool is currently being piloted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Only a small proportion of preclinical research (research performed in animal models prior to clinical trials in humans) translates into clinical benefit in humans. Possible reasons for the lack of translation of the results observed in preclinical research into human clinical benefit include the design, conduct, and reporting of preclinical studies. There is currently no formal domain-based assessment of the clinical relevance of preclinical research. To address this issue, we have developed a tool for the assessment of the clinical relevance of preclinical studies, with the intention of assessing the likelihood that therapeutic preclinical findings can be translated into improvement in the management of human diseases.
METHODS
METHODS
We searched the EQUATOR network for guidelines that describe the design, conduct, and reporting of preclinical research. We searched the references of these guidelines to identify further relevant publications and developed a set of domains and signalling questions. We then conducted a modified Delphi-consensus to refine and develop the tool. The Delphi panel members included specialists in evidence-based (preclinical) medicine specialists, methodologists, preclinical animal researchers, a veterinarian, and clinical researchers. A total of 20 Delphi-panel members completed the first round and 17 members from five countries completed all three rounds.
RESULTS
RESULTS
This tool has eight domains (construct validity, external validity, risk of bias, experimental design and data analysis plan, reproducibility and replicability of methods and results in the same model, research integrity, and research transparency) and a total of 28 signalling questions and provides a framework for researchers, journal editors, grant funders, and regulatory authorities to assess the potential clinical relevance of preclinical animal research.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We have developed a tool to assess the clinical relevance of preclinical studies. This tool is currently being piloted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33569250
doi: 10.7717/peerj.10673
pii: 10673
pmc: PMC7847198
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Langues
eng
Pagination
e10673Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Nicola Osborne is the founding member of Responsible Research in Practice. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Circulation. 1996 Nov 1;94(9):2324-36
pubmed: 8901707
Biometrics. 1999 Jun;55(2):613-9
pubmed: 11318223
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:225-34
pubmed: 26092286
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017 Nov;52(11):1165-1171
pubmed: 28687047
BMJ. 2007 Jan 27;334(7586):197
pubmed: 17175568
Nature. 2004 Apr 1;428(6982):493-521
pubmed: 15057822
Theriogenology. 2010 Jun;73(9):1167-79
pubmed: 20138353
Altern Lab Anim. 2010 May;38(2):167-82
pubmed: 20507187
Stroke. 2009 Jun;40(6):2244-50
pubmed: 19246690
Sociol Methodol. 2011 Aug 1;41(1):355-366
pubmed: 22228916
Am J Clin Nutr. 2015 Oct;102(4):721-8
pubmed: 26245806
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Lab Anim. 2018 Apr;52(2):135-141
pubmed: 28771074
Nature. 2012 Mar 28;483(7391):531-3
pubmed: 22460880
Circ Res. 2015 Jan 2;116(1):116-26
pubmed: 25552691
PLoS Med. 2005 Oct;2(10):e267
pubmed: 16138788
Int J Stroke. 2009 Dec;4(6):471-9
pubmed: 19930059
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1401-1409
pubmed: 29451320
PLoS Med. 2017 Nov 16;14(11):e1002447
pubmed: 29145404
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016 Jun;22(6):1296-305
pubmed: 27104821
JAMA. 2006 Oct 11;296(14):1731-2
pubmed: 17032985
JAMA. 2017 Mar 14;317(10):1019-1020
pubmed: 28192565
PLoS Biol. 2018 Apr 5;16(4):e2004879
pubmed: 29621228
Nat Hum Behav. 2018 Nov;2(11):793-796
pubmed: 31558810
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015 Jun;21(6):1248-59
pubmed: 25989337
BMJ. 2018 Jan 10;360:j4935
pubmed: 29321149
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 25;9(6):e98734
pubmed: 24964011
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 13;115(11):2584-2589
pubmed: 29531050
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020 Jan 27;:
pubmed: 31988195
Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Sep;22(9):1085-92
pubmed: 26291051
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Mar;87(3):904
pubmed: 29454458
Kidney Int. 2008 Nov;74(9):1116-20
pubmed: 18596728
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Stat Med. 1992 Jan 30;11(2):167-78
pubmed: 1579756
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Jun 05;13:64
pubmed: 23739011
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37908
pubmed: 22662248
Nature. 2012 Oct 11;490(7419):187-91
pubmed: 23060188
Am J Med. 2003 Apr 15;114(6):477-84
pubmed: 12731504
Nature. 2014 Mar 27;507(7493):423-5
pubmed: 24678540
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Feb 1;177(2):276-277
pubmed: 27898978
Nature. 2016 May 25;533(7604):452-4
pubmed: 27225100
PLoS Biol. 2010 Jun 29;8(6):e1000412
pubmed: 20613859
Eur Surg Res. 2015;55(1-2):119-38
pubmed: 26228574
Trends Neurosci. 2007 Sep;30(9):433-9
pubmed: 17765332
BMJ. 1996 Jul 13;313(7049):106
pubmed: 8688716
Biometrics. 2004 Mar;60(1):172-81
pubmed: 15032787
J Urol. 2014 Oct;192(4):1035-42
pubmed: 24769032
J Basic Clin Pharm. 2016 Mar;7(2):27-31
pubmed: 27057123
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Apr;96(17):e6386
pubmed: 28445252
Stat Med. 1989 Sep;8(9):1075-93; discussion 1107-8
pubmed: 2678349
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 26;9(6):e100227
pubmed: 24968228
BMJ. 1995 Aug 5;311(7001):376-80
pubmed: 7640549
Nature. 2014 Jan 30;505(7485):612-3
pubmed: 24482835
BMJ. 2011 Dec 28;343:d7995
pubmed: 22205706
J Vis Exp. 2015 Mar 02;(97):
pubmed: 25867960
EMBO Rep. 2018 May;19(5):
pubmed: 29669797
PLoS Biol. 2017 Mar 10;15(3):e2001307
pubmed: 28282371
PLoS Biol. 2009 May 5;7(5):e1000112
pubmed: 19468303
JAMA. 1999 Aug 25;282(8):771-8
pubmed: 10463714
PLoS Med. 2010 Feb 16;7(2):e1000217
pubmed: 20169112
Stroke. 2009 Mar;40(3):e50-2
pubmed: 18703798
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Dec;175(12):1992-4
pubmed: 26502403
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jun;98:89-97
pubmed: 29522827
PLoS Med. 2010 Mar 30;7(3):e1000245
pubmed: 20361020
BMJ. 1996 Sep 21;313(7059):744
pubmed: 8819450
BMJ. 1996 Jul 6;313(7048):41-2
pubmed: 8664775
J Bone Miner Res. 2010 Jul;25(7):1468-86
pubmed: 20533309
J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15
pubmed: 11095242
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014 Aug;42(6):590-6
pubmed: 24801277
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Nov;68(11):1325-35
pubmed: 26186982
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Mar 26;14:43
pubmed: 24667063
Brain Behav Immun. 2009 Mar;23(3):318-24
pubmed: 18822367
BMC Med. 2015 Nov 18;13:282
pubmed: 26581191
Am J Public Health. 2013 Jan;103(1):39-40
pubmed: 23153131
BMJ. 2017 Feb 14;356:j396
pubmed: 28196813
PLoS Biol. 2020 Jul 14;18(7):e3000411
pubmed: 32663221
Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2012 Dec;18(6):427-35
pubmed: 22571623
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Mar;9(7):1-238, iii-iv
pubmed: 15763038
Ann Intern Med. 1996 Oct 1;125(7):605-13
pubmed: 8815760
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 20;12(7):e0180986
pubmed: 28727834
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):401-9
pubmed: 24581294
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 9;13(2):e0192298
pubmed: 29425217
Stat Med. 2000 Jul 15;19(13):1793-819
pubmed: 10861779
Biostatistics. 2000 Mar;1(1):49-67
pubmed: 12933525
Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Oct 15;170(8):959-62; discussion 963-4
pubmed: 19755635
Psychophysiology. 1987 Jul;24(4):479-86
pubmed: 3615759
Nature. 2013 Apr 25;496(7446):498-503
pubmed: 23594743
BMJ. 2018 Jan 10;360:j5845
pubmed: 29321165
Stat Med. 2008 Nov 10;27(25):5195-216
pubmed: 18680172
Pain. 2016 Apr;157(4):901-909
pubmed: 26683237