In preclinical neuroscience, we are increasingly dependent on large-scale methods for evidence synthesis. With several million biomedical papers published every year, no one researcher can stay on top of the published literature. Instead we employ tools like systematic reviews to distill this information down. These methods rely on the published information being truthful, however. What happens when the evidence we collect is not? In a systematic review concerning the use of chronic unpredictable stress for modeling depression in rats, we screened 1,035 published papers for inconsistencies in
ePoster · Neuroscience