The impact of conducting preclinical systematic reviews on researchers and their research: A mixed method case study

Abstract

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are cornerstones of evidence-based medicine and have contributed significantly to breakthroughs since the 1980’s. However, preclinical SRs remain relatively rare despite their many advantages. Since 2011 the Dutch health funding organisation (ZonMw) has run a grant scheme dedicated to promoting the training, coaching and conduct of preclinical SRs. Our study focuses on this funding scheme to investigate the relevance, effects and benefits of conducting preclinical SRs on researchers and their research. Methods We recruited researchers who attended funded preclinical SR workshops and who conducted, are still conducting, or prematurely stopped a SR with funded coaching. We gathered data using online questionnaires followed by semi-structured interviews. Both aimed to explore the impact of conducting a SR on researchers’ subsequent work, attitudes, and views about their research field. Data-analysis was performed using Excel and ATLAS.ti. Results Conducting preclinical SRs had two distinct types of impact. First, the researchers acquired new skills and insights, leading to a change in mindset regarding the quality of animal research. This was mainly seen in the way participants planned, conducted and reported their subsequent animal studies, which were more transparent and of a higher quality than their previous work. Second, participants were eager to share their newly acquired knowledge within their laboratories and to advocate for change within their research teams and fields of interest. In particular, they emphasised the need for preclinical SRs and improved experimental design within preclinical research, promoting these through education and published opinion papers. Conclusion Being trained and coached in the conduct of preclinical SRs appears to be a contributing factor to many beneficial changes which will impact the quality of preclinical research in the long-term. Our findings suggest that this ZonMw funding scheme is helpful in improving the quality and transparency of preclinical research. Similar funding schemes should be encouraged, preferably by a broader group of funders or financers, in the future.

Identifying Key Factors for Accelerating the Transition to Animal-Testing-Free Medical Science through Co-Creative, Interdisciplinary Learning between Students and Teachers

“…A dermatological study suggested that using multiple public datasets containing human data may enable researchers to test and refine their hypotheses prior to starting animal experiments [ 30 ]. A study on the effects of performing systematic reviews (SRs) on the attitudes and study quality of researchers showed an increased awareness of the limitations of animal studies [ 31 ]. The interviewed researchers noted the poor quality of animal study reports and learned how to improve study quality.…”

“…The interviewed researchers noted the poor quality of animal study reports and learned how to improve study quality. In addition, this study resulted in some researchers deciding to move to clinical trials immediately, instead of performing new animal studies first [ 31 ]. Convincing examples, such as machine learning for read-across toxicity testing and in silico drug trials, have already demonstrated a higher predictive value for humans compared with animal studies [ 32 , 33 ].…”

“…Guidelines on how to perform SRs correctly and pre-registration are of vital importance if we are to move towards a research community with more open data. This will contribute to improving study design and the quality of research, reducing the number of animals used in research, and making it easier to find alternatives [ 31 ]. Another lever is initiating collaborations with various stakeholders and disciplines to coordinate efforts to develop innovative solutions [ 61 ].…”

Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation

“…Nevertheless, to conduct high-quality research, researchers need to be allocated time, understand the importance of research integrity, be trained in best practices, and know about the available tools, such as guidelines for planning and conducting animal-based studies [ 25 , 43 ]. Recently, a case study demonstrated the impact of conducting preclinical systematic reviews on the quality and transparency of research and researchers’ awareness and motivation to promote change within their fields [ 44 ]. A critical comment was that many had not previously known how to report their research adequately, nor had they realized the importance of accurate reporting.…”

The role of systematic reviews in identifying the limitations of preclinical animal research, 2000–2022: part 1

“…The programme evaluation concluded that the training raised awareness about the value of systematic reviews for research and researchers, as well as the need to bring greater scientific rigour to the conduct of animal studies, leading to an improvement in animal research quality. 48…”