Abstract
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most severe form of depression
and the leading cause of disability worldwide. When considering research
approaches aimed at understanding MDD, it is important that their
effectiveness is evaluated. Here, we assessed the effectiveness of
original studies on MDD by rating their contributions to subsequent
medical papers on the subject, and we compared the respective
contribution of findings from non-human primate (NHP) studies and from
human-based in vitro or in silico research approaches. For
each publication, we conducted a quantitative citation analysis and a
systematic qualitative analysis of the citations. In the majority of
cases, human-based research approaches (both in silico and in vitro)
received more citations in subsequent human research papers than did
NHP studies. In addition, the human-based approaches were considered to
be more relevant to the hypotheses and/or to the methods featured in the
citing papers. The results of this study suggest that studies based on in silico and in vitro
approaches are taken into account by medical researchers more often
than are NHP-based approaches. In addition, these human-based approaches
are usually cheaper and less ethically contentious than NHP studies.
Therefore, we suggest that the traditional animal-based approach for
testing medical hypotheses should be revised, and more opportunities
created for further developing human-relevant innovative techniques.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 128-139 |
Number of pages | 12 |
Journal | Alternatives to Laboratory Animals |
Volume | 47 |
Issue number | 3-4 |
Early online date | 16 Dec 2019 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 16 Dec 2019 |
Keywords
- Animal use alternatives
- In silico
- In vitro
- Major depressive disorder
- Non-human primate
- Three Rs