What has preclinical systematic review ever done for us?

Russell, Allanna M.; Sutherland, Brad A.; Landowski, Lila M.; Macleod, Malcolm; Howells, David W.

doi:10.1136/bmjos-2021-100219

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, the review was not been pre-registered, there was no attempt at pooling results to produce new evidence, and we did not systematically assess for sources of bias in the studies included—though we followed available advice on narrative reviews reporting [ 210 ] (Supplementary Material, S 4 ). In this context, it should be noted that the internal validity of many pre-clinical experiments is sometimes poor, while publication bias is common [ 74 ]—meaning that caution is required when drawing any conclusion from the evidence reported.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence from in vitro, animal, and human translational research is usually gathered and presented by means of narrative reviews. Because these studies are abundant yet less methodically organised on search engines and databases than their clinical counterparts, systematically searching for relevant mechanistic evidence can be daunting, though profitable [ 74 ]— and machine learning approaches have been developed to support the task [ 75 ]. In this paper, we, therefore, provide an overview of the mechanistic evidence that defines the pharmacological bases for repurposing statins in depression.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The pharmacological bases for repurposing statins in depression: a review of mechanistic studies

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statins are commonly prescribed medications widely investigated for their potential actions on the brain and mental health. Pre-clinical and clinical evidence suggests that statins may play a role in the treatment of depressive disorders, but only the latter has been systematically assessed. Thus, the physiopathological mechanisms underlying statins’ putative antidepressant or depressogenic effects have not been established. This review aims to gather available evidence from mechanistic studies to strengthen the pharmacological basis for repurposing statins in depression. We used a broad, well-validated search strategy over three major databases (Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO) to retrieve any mechanistic study investigating statins’ effects on depression. The systematic search yielded 8068 records, which were narrowed down to 77 relevant papers. The selected studies (some dealing with more than one bodily system) described several neuropsychopharmacological (44 studies), endocrine-metabolic (17 studies), cardiovascular (6 studies) and immunological (15 studies) mechanisms potentially contributing to the effects of statins on mood. Numerous articles highlighted the beneficial effect of statins on depression, particularly through positive actions on serotonergic neurotransmission, neurogenesis and neuroplasticity, hypothalamic-pituitary axis regulation and modulation of inflammation. The role of other mechanisms, especially the association between statins, lipid metabolism and worsening of depressive symptoms, appears more controversial. Overall, most mechanistic evidence supports an antidepressant activity for statins, likely mediated by a variety of intertwined processes involving several bodily systems. Further research in this area can benefit from measuring relevant biomarkers to inform the selection of patients most likely to respond to statins’ antidepressant effects while also improving our understanding of the physiopathological basis of depression.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The pharmacological bases for repurposing statins in depression: a review of mechanistic studies

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among these, narrative reviews, where an expert or a group of experts will summarize the literature on a speci ic topic, are more common (Faggion, Bakas, and Wasiak 2017). However, there are limitations to narrative reviews, as they typically draw from a selective subset of available literature without clear criteria and often fail to include the underlying data upon which their conclusions are based (Russell et al 2022).…”

Section: Systematic Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Preclinical Evidence Synthesis Facilitates Open Science

Bilynsky

2024

JSPG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence synthesis methodology, particularly preclinical evidence synthesis reviews, provides substantial benefits by reducing research waste, enhancing the quality of research, and providing comprehensive and objective overviews of specific fields. These reviews also allow for the contribution of citizen scientists, who represent an important facet of open science. Recent policy changes by the Biden-Harris Administration require that researchers receiving federal funding immediately make their publications and data available to the public without an embargo, highlighting the importance placed upon the open science principles of transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility. Despite this, the following assessment highlights two challenges for evidence synthesis reviews that are at odds with open science principles: (1) the lack of funding available for evidence synthesis reviews, particularly preclinical reviews, despite their demonstrated value and (2) the slow and expensive traditional publication model. I recommend allocating funding for preclinical evidence synthesis reviews as they are beneficial to both the researchers conducting the review and the field that is being reviewed. I also recommend supporting publication platforms that employ the quick release of preprints and a transparent peer review process and/or creating a federally funded and run publication platform characterized by open access and minimal publication costs.

show abstract

“…Systematic reviews are considered by many to be the pinnacle of medical evidence 1,2 , if carried out properly. Systematic reviews of clinical studies inform best practices with respect to patient care; systematic reviews of preclinical studies are used to elucidate fundamental biological mechanisms, but also to inform decisions on which drug candidates to develop and which clinical trials may be worthwhile to carry out 3,4 . Numerous guidelines and best practices have been published to aid researchers in combining and synthesizing evidence in the best possible way 5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Berrío,

Kalliokoski

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

What has preclinical systematic review ever done for us?

Cited by 9 publications

References 66 publications

The pharmacological bases for repurposing statins in depression: a review of mechanistic studies

The pharmacological bases for repurposing statins in depression: a review of mechanistic studies

Preclinical Evidence Synthesis Facilitates Open Science

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About