ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Paw Preference in Rats Across Tests, Strains, Sex, and Age: A PRISMA-Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Paw preference in rats is widely used to study hemispheric lateralization, but many individual studies are underpowered and employ inconsistent methods, leading to conflicting reports of population-level bias. We conducted a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether rats consistently display paw preference at the individual and population levels, and to evaluate the influence of behavioral test type, strain, sex, and age. Studies published between 1930 and 2025 were identified through PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. Data were extracted on strain, age, sex, behavioral paradigm, and paw-preference classification. Random-effects models were used to estimate pooled prevalence, with subgroup analyses for key variables. Forty studies (n = 1,609 rats) met inclusion criteria. At the individual level, 84% of rats displayed consistent paw preference (95% CI: 78-89%, p < 0.0001), demonstrating robust individual-level lateralization. However, population-level analyses showed no universal directional bias, right paw use occurred in 48% of rats (95% CI: 43-54%) and left paw use in 39% (95% CI: 34-44%). Ambidextrous classification thresholds were standardized across studies to ensure comparability. Subgroup analyses indicated modest strain- and test-dependent effects, with Sprague Dawley rats tending toward balanced paw use, while other strains showed slight rightward bias. Skilled-reaching tasks produced slightly stronger asymmetry than the Collins test. Sex- and age-related differences were subtle and inconsistent. Overall, rats exhibit reliable individual-level paw preference without species-wide directional asymmetry, distinguishing them from humans. Standardized testing protocols and balanced cohort designs will enhance reproducibility and translational relevance in lateralization research.
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.