Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed

被引:225
作者
Hooijmans, Carlijn R. [1 ,2 ]
Tillema, Alice [3 ]
Leenaars, Marlies [1 ,2 ]
Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Cent Anim Lab, NL-6525 EZ Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Res Ctr 3R, NL-6525 EZ Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Med Lib, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
关键词
Three Rs; ethics and welfare alternatives; ethics and welfare supplements to animal research; search filter; systematic review;
D O I
10.1258/la.2010.009117
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:170 / 175
页数:6
相关论文
共 9 条
  • [1] Bebarta V, 2003, ACAD EMERG MED, V10, P684, DOI 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00056.x
  • [2] *COM, 2007, COM2007675
  • [3] THE SCOPE FOR IMPROVING THE DESIGN OF LABORATORY-ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS
    FESTING, MFW
    [J]. LABORATORY ANIMALS, 1992, 26 (04) : 265 - 267
  • [4] A Gold Standard Publication Checklist to Improve the Quality of Animal Studies, to Fully Integrate the Three Rs, and to Make Systematic Reviews More Feasible
    Hooijmans, Carlijn R.
    Leenaars, Marlies
    Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel
    [J]. ATLA-ALTERNATIVES TO LABORATORY ANIMALS, 2010, 38 (02): : 167 - 182
  • [5] Jenkins Michelle, 2004, Health Info Libr J, V21, P148, DOI 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2004.00511.x
  • [6] Surveying the literature from animal experiments - Systematic review and meta-analysis are important contributions
    Macleod, MR
    Ebrahim, S
    Roberts, I
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 331 (7508): : 110 - 110
  • [7] Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?
    Pound, P
    Ebrahim, S
    Sandercock, P
    Bracken, MB
    Roberts, I
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2004, 328 (7438): : 514 - 517
  • [8] Russell W. M. S., 1959, Principle of Human Experimental Techniques, DOI [DOI 10.1038/1841675B0, 10.1038/1841675b0]
  • [9] Reporting animal use in scientific papers
    Smith, JA
    Birke, L
    Sadler, D
    [J]. LABORATORY ANIMALS, 1997, 31 (04) : 312 - 317