BackgroundSystematic Reviews (SRs) of experimental animal studies are not yet common practice, but awareness of the merits of conducting such SRs is steadily increasing. As animal intervention studies differ from randomized clinical trials (RCT) in many aspects, the methodology for SRs of clinical trials needs to be adapted and optimized for animal intervention studies. The Cochrane Collaboration developed a Risk of Bias (RoB) tool to establish consistency and avoid discrepancies in assessing the methodological quality of RCTs. A similar initiative is warranted in the field of animal experimentation.MethodsWe provide an RoB tool for animal intervention studies (SYRCLE’s RoB tool). This tool is based on the Cochrane RoB tool and has been adjusted for aspects of bias that play a specific role in animal intervention studies. To enhance transparency and applicability, we formulated signalling questions to facilitate judgment.ResultsThe resulting RoB tool for animal studies contains 10 entries. These entries are related to selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other biases. Half these items are in agreement with the items in the Cochrane RoB tool. Most of the variations between the two tools are due to differences in design between RCTs and animal studies. Shortcomings in, or unfamiliarity with, specific aspects of experimental design of animal studies compared to clinical studies also play a role.ConclusionsSYRCLE’s RoB tool is an adapted version of the Cochrane RoB tool. Widespread adoption and implementation of this tool will facilitate and improve critical appraisal of evidence from animal studies. This may subsequently enhance the efficiency of translating animal research into clinical practice and increase awareness of the necessity of improving the methodological quality of animal studies.

Collecting and analysing all available literature before starting an animal experiment is important and it is indispensable when writing a systematic review (SR) of animal research. Writing such review prevents unnecessary duplication of animal studies and thus unnecessary animal use (Reduction). One of the factors currently impeding the production of ‘high-quality’ SRs in laboratory animal science is the fact that searching for all available literature concerning animal experimentation is rather difficult. In order to diminish these difficulties, we developed a search filter for PubMed to detect all publications concerning animal studies. This filter was compared with the method most frequently used, the PubMed Limit: Animals, and validated further by performing two PubMed topic searches. Our filter performs much better than the PubMed limit: it retrieves, on average, 7% more records. Other important advantages of our filter are that it also finds the most recent records and that it is easy to use. All in all, by using our search filter in PubMed, all available literature concerning animal studies on a specific topic can easily be found and assessed, which will help in increasing the scientific quality and thereby the ethical validity of animal experiments.

Systematic reviews are generally regarded by professionals in the field of evidence-based medicine as the highest level of medical evidence, and they are already standard practice for clinical studies. However, they are not yet widely used nor undertaken in the field of animal experimentation, even though there is a lot to be gained from the process. Therefore, a gold standard publication checklist (GSPC) for animal studies is presented in this paper. The items on the checklist have been selected on the basis of a literature analysis and the resulting scientific evidence that these factors are decisive in determining the outcome of animal studies. In order to make future systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies possible, to allow others to replicate and build on work previously published, diminish the number of animals needed in animal experimentation (reduction), improve animal welfare (refinement) and, above all, improve the quality of scientific papers on animal experimentation, this publication checklist needs to be used and followed. We have discussed and optimised this GSPC through feedback from interviews with experts in the field of animal experimentation. From these interviews, it became clear that scientists will adopt this GSPC when journals demand it. The GSPC was compared with the current instructions for authors from nine different journals, selected on the basis that they featured a high number of publications on animal studies. In general, the journals' demands for the description of the animal studies are so limited that it is not possible to repeat the studies, let alone carry out a systematic review. By using the GSPC for animal studies, the quality of scientific papers will be improved. The use of the GSPC and the concomitant improvement in the quality of scientific papers will also contribute to decreased variation and increased standardisation and, as a consequence, a reduction in the numbers of animals used and a more reliable outcome of animal studies. It is of major importance that journal editors become convinced of and adopt these recommendations, because only then will scientists follow these guidelines to the full extent.

Systematic reviews are an important method to support evidencebased decisions in healthcare (research).Although not yet as common as clinical systematic reviews, the number of systematic reviews of animal studies has been increasing steadily in recent years. An important method to promote high-quality systematic reviews is to pre-specify the review methodology in a protocol, before the conduct of the systematic review itself. In contrast to clinical systematic reviews, a standard protocol format for systematic reviews of animal studies is not yet available. Here, we present a protocol format tailored to the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies (i.e. systematic reviews of animal experiments studying the efficacy and/or safety of interventions intended for use in human patients). In analogy to the Cochrane review protocol, the format helps authors predefine the methodological approach of their systematic review, from research question to data synthesis. We recommend that authors prospectively complete and agree on the protocol, and register and/or publish it to allow feedback on the proposed methodology and to avoid the introduction of bias during the review process. Opportunities for obtaining feedback, and for registration and publication of review protocols are also discussed.

Before starting a new animal experiment, thorough analysis of previously performed experiments is essential from a scientific as well as from an ethical point of view. The method that is most suitable to carry out such a thorough analysis of the literature is a systematic review (SR). An essential first step in an SR is to search and find all potentially relevant studies. It is important to include all available evidence in an SR to minimize bias and reduce hampered interpretation of experimental outcomes. Despite the recent development of search filters to find animal studies in PubMed and EMBASE, searching for all available animal studies remains a challenge. Available guidelines from the clinical field cannot be copied directly to the situation within animal research, and although there are plenty of books and courses on searching the literature, there is no compact guide available to search and find relevant animal studies. Therefore, in order to facilitate a structured, thorough and transparent search for animal studies (in both preclinical and fundamental science), an easy-to-use, step-by-step guide was prepared and optimized using feedback from scientists in the field of animal experimentation. The step-by-step guide will assist scientists in performing a comprehensive literature search and, consequently, improve the scientific quality of the resulting review and prevent unnecessary animal use in the future.

The question of how animal studies should be designed, conducted, and analyzed remains underexposed in societal debates on animal experimentation. This is not only a scientific but also a moral question. After all, if animal experiments are not appropriately designed, conducted, and analyzed, the results produced are unlikely to be reliable and the animals have in effect been wasted. In this article, we focus on one particular method to address this moral question, namely systematic reviews of previously performed animal experiments. We discuss how the design, conduct, and analysis of future (animal and human) experiments may be optimized through such systematic reviews. In particular, we illustrate how these reviews can help improve the methodological quality of animal experiments, make the choice of an animal model and the translation of animal data to the clinic more evidence-based, and implement the 3Rs. Moreover, we discuss which measures are being taken and which need to be taken in the future to ensure that systematic reviews will actually contribute to optimizing experimental design and thereby to meeting a necessary condition for making the use of animals in these experiments justified.

Antibodies are valuable tools in the laboratory and clinic. Antibodies include those secreted by a single clone of B lymphocytes, termed monoclonal antibodies, and those produced by a mixture of various B lymphocyte clones, termed polyclonal antibodies. Both products have become essential instruments in fundamental immunological research, immunohistochemistry, diagnostic testing, and vaccine quality control. Antibody production requires a substantial number of animals, and the animals are subjected to a number of invasive procedures such as antigen injection and blood collection. However, by carefully designing an immunization protocol and by optimizing the immunization response, it is possible to minimize animals' pain and distress while obtaining optimal immune responses. In this article, the critical steps in the production of polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies are described, specifically including selection of the animal species and its age, injection protocol, and ascites tapping. Recommendations are provided for optimizing the immunization response.

Collecting and analysing all available literature before starting a new animal experiment is important and it is indispensable when writing systematic reviews of animal research. In practice, finding all animal studies relevant to a specific research question turns out to be anything but simple. In order to facilitate this search process, we previously developed a search filter for retrieving animal studies in the most often used biomedical database, PubMed. It is a general requirement for systematic reviews, however, that at least two databases are searched. In this report, we therefore present a similar search filter for a second important database, namely Embase. We show that our filter retrieves more animal studies than (a combination of) the options currently available in Embase. Our search filters for PubMed and Embase therefore represent valuable tools for improving the quality of (systematic) reviews and thereby of new animal experiments.