SynthesisBMJ open science2019
Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from preclinical studies employing forced swimming test: an update.
Synthesis in BMJ open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence linking hippocampal neurogenesis to the effects of antidepressants on mood and behaviour.BMJ open science · 2021Pooled it
- Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from preclinical studies employing forced swimming test: an update.BMJ open science · 2019Pooled it
- The beneficial effects of vortioxetine on BDNF, CREB, S100B, β amyloid, and glutamate NR2b receptors in chronic unpredictable mild stress model of depression.Psychopharmacology · 2023Article
- The effect of ginsenosides on depression in preclinical studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of ginseng research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveForced swimming test (FST) in rodents is a widely used behavioural test for screening antidepressants in preclinical research. Translational value of preclinical studies may be improved by appraisal of the quality of experimental design and risk of biases, which remains to be addressed for FST. The present protocol of a systematic review with meta-analysis aims to investigate the quality of preclinical studies employing FST to identify risks of bias in future publications. In addition, this protocol will help to determine the effect sizes (ES) for primary and secondary outcomes according to several aspects of the FST study design. SEARCH STRATEGY SCREENING ANNOTATION DATA MANAGEMENT: Publications reporting studies testing different classes of antidepressants in FST will be collected from Medline, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. A broad list of inclusion criteria will be applied excluding those studies whereby FST is used as a stressor or studies reporting data from co-treatments. For assessing the quality of the included publications, the quality checklist adapted by Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies will be used. If the meta-analysis seems feasible, the ES and the 95% CI will be analysed. The heterogeneity between studies will be assessed by using the χ REPORTING: A preliminary version of the present protocol has been preregistered with Systematic Review Facility (http://syrf.org.uk/). A preprint version of the current protocol has been registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9kxm4/). Results will be communicated in scientific meetings and peer-reviewed journals. We plan to conduct an anonymous and online survey within the scientific community to ask researchers about their perception of risk of bias and their experience with the publication of negative results.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.