02013nas a2200157   4500000000100000008004100001260001300042100001800055700002700073245008700100856005800187300000700245490000700252520158200259022001401841       2020                            d  c2020-1-91 aPandora Pound1 aMerel Ritskes-Hoitinga00aCan prospective systematic reviews of animal studies improve clinical translation?  uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6953128/  a150 v183 aSystematic reviews are powerful tools with the potential to generate high quality evidence. Their application to animal studies has been instrumental in exposing the poor quality of these studies, as well as a catalyst for improvements in study design, conduct and reporting. It has been suggested that prospective systematic reviews of animal studies (i.e. systematic reviews conducted prior to clinical trials) would allow scrutiny of the preclinical evidence, providing valuable information on safety and efficacy, and helping to determine whether clinical trials should proceed. However, while prospective systematic reviews allow valuable scrutiny of the preclinical animal data, they are not necessarily able to reliably predict the safety and efficacy of an intervention when trialled in humans. Consequently, they may not reliably safeguard humans participating in clinical trials and might potentially result in lost opportunities for beneficial clinical treatments. Furthermore, animal and human studies are often conducted concurrently, which not only makes prospective systematic reviews of animal studies impossible, but suggests that animal studies do not inform human studies in the manner presumed. We suggest that this points to a confused attitude regarding animal studies, whereby tradition demands that they precede human studies but practice indicates that their findings are often ignored. We argue that it is time to assess the relative contributions of animal and human research in order to better understand how clinical knowledge is actually produced.  a1479-5876