There are some interesting examples, though; from the second link:
In animal models of acute ischemic stroke, about 500 “neuroprotective” treatment strategies have been reported to improve outcome, but only aspirin and very early intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase (recombinant tissue-plasminogen activator) have proved effective in patients, despite numerous clinical trials of other treatment strategies [8],[9].
Animal models such as mice can simply be irrelevant to humans, leading to cases like <150 sepsis clinical trials all failing—because the drugs worked in mice but humans have a completely different set of genetic reactions to inflammation.
(I imagine that the latter is particularly relevant; how many thousands of mouse studies on inflammation were part of the evidence base for those <150 clinical trials? Probably quite a few. And it seems that they all are essentially irrelevant to anything in humans. Now, imagine the translation rate for bird to primate, based on a bird system which doesn’t even exist in humans...)
I don’t know of any good meta-analysis or review, aside from some quick searching turning up “Translation of Research Evidence From Animals to Humans” & “Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?” which seems to be narrower than one would want (examining treatment for specific issues in animal models translating to successful treatment in humans, which is much more likely to translate than your press release).
There are some interesting examples, though; from the second link:
From my appendix:
(I imagine that the latter is particularly relevant; how many thousands of mouse studies on inflammation were part of the evidence base for those <150 clinical trials? Probably quite a few. And it seems that they all are essentially irrelevant to anything in humans. Now, imagine the translation rate for bird to primate, based on a bird system which doesn’t even exist in humans...)