Animal models for cystic fibrosis: a systematic search and mapping review of the literature. Part 2: nongenetic models

A systematic review of animal and human data comparing the nasal potential difference test between cystic fibrosis and control

The nasal potential difference test (nPD) is an electrophysiological measurement which is altered in patients and animal models with cystic fibrosis (CF). Because protocols and outcomes vary substantially between laboratories, there are concerns over its validity and precision. We performed a systematic literature review (SR) of the nPD to answer the following review questions: A. Is the nasal potential difference similarly affected in CF patients and animal models?", and B. "Is the nPD in human patients and animal models of CF similarly affected by various changes in the experimental set-up?". The review protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42021236047). We searched PubMed and Embase with comprehensive search strings. Two independent reviewers screened all references for inclusion and extracted all data. Included were studies about CF which described in vivo nPD measurements in separate CF and control groups. Risk of bias was assessed, and three meta-analyses were performed. We included 130 references describing nPD values for CF and control subjects, which confirmed substantial variation in the experimental design and nPD outcome between groups. The meta-analyses showed a clear difference in baseline nPD values between CF and control subjects, both in animals and in humans. However, baseline nPD values were, on average, lower in animal than in human studies. Reporting of experimental details was poor for both animal and human studies, and urgently needs to improve to ensure reproducibility of experiments within and between species.

Reviewing the animal literature: how to describe and choose between different types of literature reviews

Before starting any (animal) research project, review of the existing literature is good practice. From both the scientific and the ethical perspective, high-quality literature reviews are essential. Literature reviews have many potential advantages besides synthesising the evidence for a research question. First, they can show if a proposed study has already been performed, preventing redundant research. Second, when planning new experiments, reviews can inform the experimental design, thereby increasing the reliability, relevance and efficiency of the study. Third, reviews may even answer research questions using already available data. Multiple definitions of the term literature review co-exist. In this paper, we describe the different steps in the review process, and the risks and benefits of using various methodologies in each step. We then suggest common terminology for different review types: narrative reviews, mapping reviews, scoping reviews, rapid reviews, systematic reviews and umbrella reviews. We recommend which review to select, depending on the research question and available resources. We believe that improved understanding of review methods and terminology will prevent ambiguity and increase appropriate interpretation of the conclusions of reviews.