A systematic review of the Trier Social Stress Test methodology: Issues in promoting study comparison and replicable research
Narvaez Linares NF, Charron V, Ouimet AJ, Labelle PR, Plamondon H
Neurobiology of stress · 2020
What the research tells us
Examines variation in TSST methods and reporting that complicates comparisons and replication. It supports checking task administration and measurement schedules before comparing recovery findings.
Scope & interpretation
A methods review does not supply a common biological recovery threshold; procedures and participant characteristics still matter.
Study at a glance
- POPULATION & SAMPLE
- Published human TSST studies reviewed for methodological practice.
- EXPOSURE / INTERVENTION / SUBJECT
- Variations in the TSST and associated measurement procedures.
- OUTCOMES
- Comparability, reporting and reproducibility of stress experiments.
- TIME FRAME
- Review published in 2020.
Cited on this site
Editorial & review record
Record for v1.0 · Updated
Editorial responsibility: TAP Editorial Team
Editorial note
Under the editorial responsibility of the TAP Editorial Team, this publication used AI assistance for content organization and editing.
Download detailed editorial record (JSON) ↓
How responsibilities and review are recorded ↗Scope of this reading note
PubMed bibliographic record and abstract. This note covers the question and reported findings; detailed methods, supplements and complete declarations were not assessed.
- Funding & competing interests
- Funding and competing-interest details have not been verified against the full text. Consult the original publication’s declarations.
Project support
Founded and supported by Resilio.
Read the editorial standards ↗