Search

Background Muscarinic receptor agonism and positive allosteric modulation is a promising mechanism of action for treating psychosis, not present in most D2R-blocking antipsychotics. Xanomeline, an M1/M4-preferring agonist, has shown efficacy in late-stage clinical trials, with more compounds being investigated. Therefore, we aim to synthesize evidence on the preclinical efficacy of muscarinic receptor agonists and positive allosteric modulators in animal models of psychosis to provide unique insights and evidence-based information to guide drug development. Methods We plan a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo animal studies comparing muscarinic receptor agonists or positive allosteric modulators with control conditions and existing D2R-blocking antipsychotics in animals subjected to any method that induces behavioural changes of relevance for psychosis. We will identify eligible studies by searching multiple electronic databases. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection and data extraction using prespecified forms and assess the risk of bias with the SYRCLE’s tool. Our primary outcomes include locomotor activity and prepulse inhibition measured with standardized mean differences. We will examine other behavioural readouts of relevance for psychosis as secondary outcomes, such as social interaction and cognitive function. We will synthesize the data using multi-level meta-analysis with a predefined random-effects structure, considering the non-independence of the data. In meta-regressions we will explore potential sources of heterogeneity from a predefined list of characteristics of the animal population, model, and intervention. We will assess the confidence in the evidence considering a self-developed instrument thatconsiders the internal and external validity of the evidence. Protocol registration PROSPERO-ID: CRD42024520914

xx.

Background Muscarinic receptor agonism is a promising mechanism of action for treating psychosis, not present in most D 2R-blocking antipsychotics. Xanomeline, an M1/M4-preferring agonist, has shown efficacy in late-stage clinical trials, with more compounds being investigated. Therefore, we aim to synthesize evidence on the preclinical efficacy of muscarinic receptor agonists in animal models of psychosis to provide unique insights and evidence-based information to guide drug development. Methods We plan a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo animal studies comparing muscarinic receptor agonists or positive allosteric modulators with control conditions and existing D2R-blocking antipsychotics in animals subjected to any method that induces behavioural changes of relevance for psychosis. We will identify eligible studies by searching multiple electronic databases. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection and data extraction using prespecified forms and assess the risk of bias with the SYRCLE’s tool. Our primary outcomes include locomotor activity and prepulse inhibition measured with standardized mean differences. We will examine other behavioural readouts of relevance for psychosis as secondary outcomes, such as social interaction and cognitive function. We will synthesize the data using multi-level meta-analysis with a predefined random-effects structure, considering the non-independence of the data. In meta-regressions we will explore potential sources of heterogeneity from a predefined list of characteristics of the animal population, model, and intervention. We will assess the confidence in the evidence considering a self-developed instrument thatconsiders the internal and external validity of the evidence. Protocol registration PROSPERO-ID: CRD42024520914

Conversations about open science have reached the mainstream, yet many open science practices such as data sharing remain uncommon. Our efforts towards openness therefore need to increase in scale and aim for a more ambitious target. We need an ecosystem not only where research outputs are openly shared but also in which transparency permeates the research process from the start and lends itself to more rigorous and collaborative research. To support this vision, this Essay provides an overview of a selection of open science initiatives from the past 2 decades, focusing on methods transparency, scholarly communication, team science, and research culture, and speculates about what the future of open science could look like. It then draws on these examples to provide recommendations for how funders, institutions, journals, regulators, and other stakeholders can create an environment that is ripe for improvement.