Berrio, J. P. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2024

Fraudulent studies are undermining the reliability of systematic reviews - a study of the prevalence of problematic images in preclinical studies of depression

Systematic reviews are considered by many to constitute the highest level of scientific evidence. A caveat is that the methods used in a systematic review - combining information from multiple studies - are predicated on all of the reports being truthful. Currently, we do not know how frequent fraudulent studies are in systematic reviews, or how they affect the resulting evidence base. For a systematic review of preclinical studies of depression, we found that potentially fraudulent studies were not only common but also that they biased the findings of the review. In a sample of 1,035 studies, we found that 19 % of peer-reviewed reports displayed data in the form of problematic images. In a majority of the cases, images had been altered or recycled in a way that makes us suspect foul play. Making things worse, these studies reported larger effect sizes, on average, than did studies where we did not identify problems. Counter to commonly held beliefs, reports with problematic images were not cited less or published in lower-impact journals, nor were their authors isolated to any specific geographic area. The sheer prevalence of problematic studies, and the fact that we could not find a simple pattern for identifying them, undermines the validity of systematic reviews within our research field. We suspect that this is symptomatic of a broader problem that needs immediate addressing.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2023

Reliability of sucrose preference testing following short or no food and water deprivation. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of rat models of chronic unpredictable stress

The sucrose preference test is a popular test for anhedonia in the chronic unpredictable stress model of depression. Yet, the test does not always produce consistent results. Long food and water deprivation before the test, while often implemented, confounds the results by introducing unwanted drives in the form of hunger and thirst. We assessed the reliability of the test when only short or no fasting was used. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies in rats exposed to chronic unpredictable stress that used no more than six hours of food and/or water deprivation before the test. Sweet consumptions, for stressed and control/antidepressant-treated animals, in 132 studies were pooled using random effects models. We found a decrease in sweet consumption in stressed rats, compared to controls, that was halved when a non-caloric sweetener was used and significantly reduced when sucrose consumption was corrected for body weight. What is more, the length of food and water deprivation was found to confound the effect. The effect was reversed when the stressed rats were treated with antidepressants. Methodological strategies meant to control for recognized sources of bias when conducting the test were often missing, and so was a clear and complete report of essential study information. Our results indicate that not only is food and water deprivation before the test unnecessary, but not recommended. Even in absence of long fasting, we found evidence of an additional effect on sweet consumption that is unrelated to anhedonia. Without properly controlling for non-hedonic drivers of consumption, the test is unreliable as a proxy measure of anhedonia. Strengthening the methodological rigor and addressing the confounding effect of metabolic factors in the sucrose preference test prevents misleading conclusions that harm the translatability of the associated research and perpetuates the use of animals for little gain.

animal behavior and cognition↗