Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Oct 4.
Published in final edited form as: ALTEX. 2013;30(3):275–291. doi: 10.14573/altex.2013.3.275

Tab. 2. Examples of more systematic evaluations of the quality of animal studies of drug efficacy.

First author Year published (Number of) indications Number of studies considered (of total) Reproducible in humans
Horn 2001 stroke 20 (225) 50%
The methodological quality of the animal studies was found to be poor. Of the included studies, 50% were in favor of nimodipine (which was not effective in human trials). In-depth analyses showed statistically significant effects in favor of treatment (10 studies) (Horn et al., 2001).
Corpet 2003 dietary agents on colorectal cancer 111 55%
We found that the effect of most of the agents tested was consistent across the animal and clinical models.” Data extracted from Table 3 (Corpet et al., 2003) with noted discrepant results for 20 studies, but only summary results provided. No quality assurance of data or inclusion/exclusion criteria. Human study end point is not cancer incidence but adenoma recurrence. The two animal models in rat and mice showed a significant correlation of agents tested in both models (r = 0.66; n = 36; P < 0.001). Updated very similar analysis published (Corpet et al., 2005).
Perel 2007 diverse (6) 230 50% (of indications)
Discordance between animal and human studies may be due to bias or to the failure of animal models to mimic clinical disease adequately.” Poor quality of animal studies noted.
Bebarta 2003 emergency medicine 290 n.a.
Animal studies that do not utilize RND [randomization] and BLD [blinding] are more likely to report a difference between study groups than studies that employ these methods” (Bebarta et al., 2003).
Pound 2004 diverse (6) n.a. n.a.
Analysis of 25 systematic reviews on animal studies found; summary of six examples (Horn et al., 2001; Lucas et al., 2002; Roberts et al., 2002; Mapstone et al., 2003; Ciccone and Candelise, unpublished; Petticrew and Davey Smith, 2003). “Much animal research into potential treatments for humans is wasted because it is poorly conducted and not evaluated through systematic reviews.”
Sena 2010 stroke 1359 n.a.
Analysis of 16 systematic reviews of interventions tested in animal studies of acute ischemic stroke involving 525 unique publications. Publication bias was highly prevalent (Sena et al., 2010).
Hackam 2006 diverse 76 37%
Only about a third of highly cited animal research translated at the level of human randomized trials.” (Hackam and Redelmeier, 2006)