-
Journal of Neuroscience Methods Jul 2023Exposing rats to repeated unpredictable stressors is a popular method for modelling depression. The sucrose preference test is used to assess the validity of this...
BACKGROUND
Exposing rats to repeated unpredictable stressors is a popular method for modelling depression. The sucrose preference test is used to assess the validity of this method, as it measures a rat´s preference for a sweet solution as an indicator of its ability to experience pleasure. Typically, if stressed rats show a lower preference compared to unstressed rats, it is concluded they are experiencing stress-induced anhedonia.
METHODS
While conducting a systematic review, we identified 18 studies that used thresholds to define anhedonia and to distinguish "susceptible" from "resilient" individuals. Based on their definitions, researchers either excluded "resilient" animals from further analyses or treated them as a separate cohort. We performed a descriptive analysis to understand the rationale behind these criteria.
RESULTS
we found that the methods used for characterizing the stressed rats were largely unsupported. Many authors failed to justify their choices or relied exclusively on referencing previous studies. When tracing back the method to its origins, we converged on a pioneering article that, although employed as a universal evidence-based justification, cannot be regarded as such. What is more, through a simulation study, we provided evidence that removing or splitting data, based on an arbitrary threshold, introduces statistical bias by overestimating the effect of stress.
CONCLUSION
Caution must be exercised when implementing a predefined cut-off for anhedonia. Researchers should be aware of potential biases introduced by their data treatment strategies and strive for transparent reporting of methodological decisions.
Topics: Rats; Animals; Anhedonia; Sucrose; Depression; Food Preferences; Stress, Psychological; Disease Models, Animal
PubMed: 37394102
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2023.109910 -
Clinical Oncology (Royal College of... May 2024Pelvic radiotherapy can induce gastrointestinal injury and symptoms, which can affect quality of life. We assessed interventions for managing these symptoms. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Pelvic radiotherapy can induce gastrointestinal injury and symptoms, which can affect quality of life. We assessed interventions for managing these symptoms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A review of randomised controlled trials published between January 1990 and June 2023 from databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN and grey literature sources was conducted. Meta-analyses were carried out using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model to produce overall treatment differences with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies (2392 participants) of varying methodological quality were included. 4% formalin was superior to sucralfate for improving gastrointestinal symptom score (standardised mean difference [SMD] -1.07, 95% confidence interval -1.48 to -0.65). Argon plasma coagulation (APC) was inferior to sucralfate (SMD 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.59). Counselling positively influenced symptom score (SMD -0.53, 95% confidence interval -0.76 to -0.29), whereas hyperbaric oxygen therapy showed conflicting results. Sucralfate combined with APC increased endoscopic markers of moderate-severe bleeding versus APC alone (risk ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 4.55). No definite conclusions on pain, incontinence, diarrhoea, tenesmus or quality of life interventions were confirmed.
CONCLUSIONS
Small study sizes, methodological quality and heterogeneity limit support of any individual intervention. APC and 4% formalin seem to be promising interventions, with further larger randomised controlled trials now warranted.
Topics: Humans; Sucralfate; Quality of Life; Gastrointestinal Tract; Rectum; Formaldehyde
PubMed: 38431427
DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2024.02.011 -
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Aug 2020
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Humans; Lactose; Oxidoreductases; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32326988
DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X20000576