The duration of chronic restraint stress protocols is a poor predictor of behaviour effect size: a meta-analysis

Stressors are commonly used in rats to induce models of anxiety or depression. The effectiveness of these stressors is often evaluated using specific behavioural tests. In a previous meta-analysis of chronic variable stress (CVS) procedures, we predicted that longer and more intensive stress procedures would result in larger effect sizes in behavioural tests. However, we found that the duration or intensity of CVS procedures did not correlate strongly with the magnitude of the effect sizes reported in behaviouraltests. In that study, we were concerned that the large and unexplained diversity in CVS procedure design, both in terms of duration and the types of stressors used, made it challenging to detect the factors that were influencing effect size. In an effort to address this, we explore here the use of a much simpler stress procedure - chronic restraint stress (CRS) - to study the relationship between the duration of CRS procedures and the effect sizes obtained in subsequent behavioural tests. We searched PubMed for articles using CRS procedures with rats, systematically documented the total duration of restraint, and carried out a meta-analysis of the effect sizes obtained in four behavioural tests: the forced swim test (FST), the sucrose preference test (SPT), the elevated plus maze (EPM) and the open field test (OFT). We found that chronic restraint stress increased immobility in the FST, decreased sucrose preference in the SPT, decreased time spent in the open arms of the EPM but had no effect on time spent in the centre of the OFT. However, the effect sizes in all behavioural tests, except the SPT, were not moderated by the duration of the CRS procedure, indicating that longer CRS procedures are associated with larger effect sizes in the SPT but not in the FST or EPM.