Reliability of Mouse Behavioural Tests of Anxiety: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Anxiolytics.
Rosso, M.; Wirz, R.; Loretan, A. V.; Sutter, N. A.; Pereira da Cunha, C. T.; Jaric, I.; Würbel, H.; Voelkl, B.
Show abstract
Animal research on anxiety and anxiety disorders relies on valid animal models of anxiety. However, the validity of widely used rodent behavioural tests of anxiety has repeatedly been questioned, as they often fail to produce consistent results across independent replicate studies using different study populations or different anxiolytic compounds. In this study, we assessed the sensitivity of behavioural tests of anxiety in mice to detect anxiolytic effects of drugs prescribed to treat anxiety in humans. To this end, we conducted a pre-registered systematic review of studies reporting tests of anxiolytic compounds against a control treatment using common behavioural tests of anxiety in mice. PubMed and EMBASE were searched on August 21st 2019 for studies published in English and 814 papers were identified for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed based on Syrcles risk of bias tool and the Camarades study quality checklist on a randomly selected subsample of 180 papers. Meta-analyses on effect sizes of treatments using standardized mean differences (Hedges g) showed that only two of 17 test measures reliably detected effects of anxiolytic compounds other than diazepam. Further, we report considerable variation in both direction and size of effects of most anxiolytics on most outcome variables, indicating poor replicability of test results. This was corroborated by high heterogeneity in most test measures. Finally, we found an overall high risk of bias. Our findings indicate a general lack of sensitivity of common behavioural tests of anxiety in mice to anxiolytic compounds and cast serious doubt on both construct and predictive validity of most of those tests. The use of animals to model human conditions can be justified only if the expected results are informative, reproducible, and translatable. In view of scientifically valid and ethically responsible research, we call for a revision of behavioural tests of anxiety in mice and the development of more predictive tests.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Effect size, sample size and power of forced swim test assays in mice: Guidelines for investigators to optimize reproducibility 95%
- A large Australian longitudinal cohort registry demonstrates sustained safety and efficacy of oral medicinal cannabis for at least two years 92%
- Cannabinoid receptor 1 positive allosteric modulator ZCZ011 shows differential effects on behavior and the endocannabinoid system in HIV-1 Tat transgenic female and male mice 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Pharmacological prevention of neonatal opioid withdrawal in a pregnant guinea pig model. 93%
- Hydroxychloroquine increased psychiatric-like behaviors and disrupted the expression of related genes in the mouse brain 92%
- Near, far, wherever you are: Phenotype-related variation in pharmacogenomic effect sizes across the psychiatric drug literature. 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- 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 94%
- Synergistic Behavioral and Neuroplastic Effects of Psilocybin-NMDAR Modulator Administration. 93%
- Modelling sexual violence in male rats: The sexual aggression test (SxAT) 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Drug-Drug interactions between COVID-19 treatments and antipsychotics drugs: integrated evidence from 4 databases and a systematic review 93%
- Effects of the Neutral CB1 Receptor Antagonist AM6527 on Spontaneous, Consummatory, and Motivated Behavior in Mice 92%
- The acute effects of cannabidiol on emotional processing and anxiety: a neurocognitive imaging study 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.