Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32612512›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in cellular neuroscience2020

The Synaptic Scaling Literature: A Systematic Review of Methodologies and Quality of Reporting.

Thiago C Moulin, Danielle Rayêe, Michael J Williams, Helgi B Schiöth

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Diverging from the Norm: Reevaluating What Miniature Excitatory Postsynaptic Currents Tell Us about Homeostatic Synaptic Plasticity.The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Thiago C MoulinInstitute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Danielle RayêeInstitute of Biomedical Sciences, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Michael J WilliamsFunctional Pharmacology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Helgi B SchiöthFunctional Pharmacology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The maintenance of the excitability of neurons and circuits is a fundamental process for healthy brain functions. One of the main homeostatic mechanisms responsible for such regulation is synaptic scaling. While this type of plasticity is well-characterized through a robust body of literature, there are no systematic evaluations of the methodological and reporting features from these studies. Our review yielded 168 articles directly investigating synaptic scaling mechanisms, which display relatively high impact, with a median impact factor of 7.76 for the publishing journals. Our methodological analysis identified that 86% of the articles made use of inhibitory interventions to induce synaptic scaling, while only 41% of those studies contain excitatory manipulations. To verify the effects of synaptic scaling, the most assessed outcome was miniature excitatory postsynaptic current (mEPSC) recordings, performed in 71% of the articles. We could also observe that the field is mostly focused on mechanistic studies of the synaptic scaling pathways (70%), rather than the interaction with other types of plasticity, such as Hebbian processes (4%). We found that more than half of the articles failed to describe simple features, such as regulatory compliance statements, ethics committee approval, or statements of conflict of interests. In light of these results, we discuss the strengths and pitfalls existing in synaptic scaling literature.

Indexed as

electrophysiologyhomeostatic plasticitymolecular methodsquality of reportingrisk of bias assessmentsynaptic scalingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32612512
PMCPMC7309364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.