ReviewJournal of neuroendocrinology2025
Rodent chronic variable stress procedures: A disjunction between stress entity and impact on behaviour.
Review in Journal of neuroendocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Are biologically meaningful effect sizes a factor in study design? A systematic review of translational chronic variable stress studies.Experimental physiology · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the antidepressant-like effects of ginsenosides in animal models: comparative behavioral profiles and exploratory dose-stratified analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Adenosine A2A receptors in the nucleus accumbens regulate stress resilience and predict susceptibility to stress-induced affective disturbances.Purinergic signalling · 2026Article
- Dihydrotestosterone regulation of stress-related behaviors in mice exposed to subchronic variable stress.Psychoneuroendocrinology · 2025Article
- Rodent chronic variable stress procedures: A disjunction between stress entity and impact on behaviour.Journal of neuroendocrinology · 2025Review
- Fluoxetine and agomelatine mitigate anhedonic and hepatic changes in chronic restraint stress rat model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chronic variable stress (CVS) procedures are widely used to model depression in laboratory mice and rats. In order to explore how study design might impact experimental outcomes, we systematically documented characteristics of study design in a series of published rodent CVS studies and, in a subset of studies, measured effect sizes in the behavioural tests used to evaluate the effects of CVS. We hypothesised that CVS procedures that were longer or involved more stressors would be associated with larger effect sizes in five commonly used behavioural tests: the sucrose preference test (SPT), the tail suspension test (TST), the forced swim test (FST), the open field test (OFT) and the elevated plus maze (EPM). We also hypothesised that effect sizes would positively correlate between the behavioural tests that are believed to measure the same consequences of CVS. We searched PubMed for articles using CVS procedures with mice or rats and systematically documented the duration (the length of the CVS procedure), burden (the total number of stressors experienced by the animal) and diversity (the total number of different types of stressors used) of the CVS procedures used. We also systematically documented the design of the behavioural tests used to evaluate the effects of CVS in each study and calculated the effect sizes obtained in these tests. To ask whether effect sizes in these tests correlated with characteristics of the CVS procedure used, we used a linear model of the effect of duration, burden, and diversity on the effect size, then calculated the Euclidean distance between studies' characteristics and correlated those with the differences in effect size between studies. To explore whether effect sizes correlated between different behavioural tests, we calculated a pairwise Pearson correlation. We observed that most studies used a unique CVS procedure. In contrast to our hypothesis, the most evident impact of CVS procedure design was on FST effect sizes, where longer-duration CVS procedures with more diverse types of stressors were associated with a smaller effect size in behavioural tests. When exploring correlations between behavioural test effect sizes, we found a positive correlation between effect sizes in the TST and FST, and in the OFT and EPM, but the strongest positive correlations were between the EPM and TST, and between the EPM and FST. These data uncover complex relationships that are not necessarily in concordance with current understanding of what these tests measure. Accordingly, our data raise scientific questions around the design of CVS procedures used and the behavioural tests used to evaluate them.
Indexed as
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.