The clinical impact of high-profile animal-based research reported in the UK national press: a detailed discussion of articles from 1995, and full search results from the Nexis database

<p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>Objectives</b>: We evaluated animal-based biomedical 'breakthroughs' reported in the UK national press in 1995 (25 years prior to the conclusion of this study). Based on evidence of over-speculative reporting of biomedical research in other areas (e.g. press releases and scientific papers), we specifically examined animal research in the media, asking, "In a given year, what proportion of animal research 'breakthroughs' published in the UK national press had translated, more than 20 years later, to approved interventions?"</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>Methods</b>: We searched the Nexis media database (LexisNexis.com) for animal-based biomedical reports in the UK national press. The only restrictions were that the intervention should be specific, such as a named drug, gene, biomedical pathway, to facilitate follow-up, and that there should be claims of some clinical promise. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>Main Outcome Measures</b>: Were any interventions approved for human use? If so, when and by which agency? If not, why, and how far did development proceed? Were any other, directly related interventions approved? Did any of the reports over-state human relevance?</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>Results</b>: Over-speculation and exaggeration of human relevance was evident in all the articles examined. Of 27 unique published 'breakthroughs', only one had clearly resulted in human benefit. Twenty were classified as failures, three were inconclusive, and three were partially successful.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>Conclusions</b>: The results of animal-based pre-clinical research studies are commonly over-stated in media reports, to prematurely imply often-imminent 'breakthroughs' relevant to human medicine.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>