This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 39/10/2697    most recent STROKEAHA.108.519488v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zivin, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Zivin, J. A. Related Collections Animal models of human disease Related Article

(Stroke. 2008;39:2697.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorials

Identifying Low-Quality Preclinical Studies

Justin A. Zivin, MD, PhD

From the Department of Neurosciences, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, Calif.

Correspondence to Justin A. Zivin, MD, PhD, University of California San Diego, San Diego VA Medical Center, Neurology Service (127), 3350 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, CA 92161. E-mail jzivin@ucsd.edu

Key Words: animal models

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

See related article, pages 2824–2829.

The failure of the NXY-059 development program for acute stroke therapy has been a major setback in the field of neuroprotection. Large pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to finance further trials in this area of research in the foreseeable future. There have simply been too many disappointments.¹ Reviewers at the National Institutes of Health have similar concerns and are currently resistant to funding much of this type of work. This is particularly regrettable because much has been learned about how to design and conduct such investigations in the past 15 to 20 years. I think it is likely that if current methodology had been used for several of the drugs that were abandoned along the way, some would have been found to be safe and effective for treating acute stroke victims.

The article by Macleod et al² in this issue is an attempt to identify specific factors that lead to the failure of NXY-059 to be proven useful. It is their contention that low-quality preclinical investigations were, in large measure, to blame, and that they have a method for detecting inferior work. Specifically, they used their Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Stroke (CAMARADES) checklist^3,4 to identify flaws in the individual preclinical studies. They further decided that their findings strongly suggest biases of the preclinical investigators, which was a major factor in their providing misleading evidence. Ignoring for a moment that there are numerous suppositions in this logic, I . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article:

Evidence for the Efficacy of NXY-059 in Experimental Focal Cerebral Ischaemia Is Confounded by Study Quality

Malcolm R. Macleod, H. Bart van der Worp, Emily S. Sena, David W. Howells, Ulrich Dirnagl, and Geoffrey A. Donnan
Stroke 2008 39: 2824-2829. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]