Cargando…

Meta-analysis on reporting practices as a source of heterogeneity in in vitro cancer research

OBJECTIVES: Heterogeneity of results of exact same research experiments oppose a significant socioeconomic burden. Insufficient methodological reporting is likely to be one of the contributors to results heterogeneity; however, little knowledge on reporting habits of in vitro cancer research and the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sander, Timo, Ghanawi, Joly, Wilson, Emma, Muhammad, Sajjad, Macleod, Malcolm, Kahlert, Ulf Dietrich
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9171230/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35721833
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2021-100272
_version_ 1784721620290502656
author Sander, Timo
Ghanawi, Joly
Wilson, Emma
Muhammad, Sajjad
Macleod, Malcolm
Kahlert, Ulf Dietrich
author_facet Sander, Timo
Ghanawi, Joly
Wilson, Emma
Muhammad, Sajjad
Macleod, Malcolm
Kahlert, Ulf Dietrich
author_sort Sander, Timo
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Heterogeneity of results of exact same research experiments oppose a significant socioeconomic burden. Insufficient methodological reporting is likely to be one of the contributors to results heterogeneity; however, little knowledge on reporting habits of in vitro cancer research and their effects on results reproducibility is available. Exemplified by a commonly performed in vitro assay, we aim to fill this knowledge gap and to derive recommendations necessary for reproducible, robust and translational preclinical science. METHODS: Here, we use systematic review to describe reporting practices in in vitro glioblastoma research using the Uppsala-87 Malignant Glioma (U-87 MG) cell line and perform multilevel random-effects meta-analysis followed by meta-regression to explore sources of heterogeneity within that literature, and any associations between reporting characteristics and reported findings. Literature that includes experiments measuring the effect of temozolomide on the viability of U-87 MG cells is searched on three databases (Embase, PubMed and Web of Science). RESULTS: In 137 identified articles, the methodological reporting is incomplete, for example, medium glucose level and cell density are reported in only 21.2% and 16.8% of the articles. After adjustments for different drug concentrations and treatment durations, the results heterogeneity across the studies (I(2)=68.5%) is concerningly large. Differences in culture medium glucose level are a driver of this heterogeneity. However, infrequent reporting of most experimental parameters limits the analysis of reproducibility moderating parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Our results further support the ongoing efforts of establishing consensus reporting practices to elevate durability of results. By doing so, this work can raise awareness of how stricter reporting may help to improve the frequency of successful translation of preclinical results into human application. The authors received no specific funding for this work. A preregistered protocol is available at the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9k3dq).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9171230
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91712302022-06-16 Meta-analysis on reporting practices as a source of heterogeneity in in vitro cancer research Sander, Timo Ghanawi, Joly Wilson, Emma Muhammad, Sajjad Macleod, Malcolm Kahlert, Ulf Dietrich BMJ Open Sci Original Research OBJECTIVES: Heterogeneity of results of exact same research experiments oppose a significant socioeconomic burden. Insufficient methodological reporting is likely to be one of the contributors to results heterogeneity; however, little knowledge on reporting habits of in vitro cancer research and their effects on results reproducibility is available. Exemplified by a commonly performed in vitro assay, we aim to fill this knowledge gap and to derive recommendations necessary for reproducible, robust and translational preclinical science. METHODS: Here, we use systematic review to describe reporting practices in in vitro glioblastoma research using the Uppsala-87 Malignant Glioma (U-87 MG) cell line and perform multilevel random-effects meta-analysis followed by meta-regression to explore sources of heterogeneity within that literature, and any associations between reporting characteristics and reported findings. Literature that includes experiments measuring the effect of temozolomide on the viability of U-87 MG cells is searched on three databases (Embase, PubMed and Web of Science). RESULTS: In 137 identified articles, the methodological reporting is incomplete, for example, medium glucose level and cell density are reported in only 21.2% and 16.8% of the articles. After adjustments for different drug concentrations and treatment durations, the results heterogeneity across the studies (I(2)=68.5%) is concerningly large. Differences in culture medium glucose level are a driver of this heterogeneity. However, infrequent reporting of most experimental parameters limits the analysis of reproducibility moderating parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Our results further support the ongoing efforts of establishing consensus reporting practices to elevate durability of results. By doing so, this work can raise awareness of how stricter reporting may help to improve the frequency of successful translation of preclinical results into human application. The authors received no specific funding for this work. A preregistered protocol is available at the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9k3dq). BMJ Publishing Group 2022-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9171230/ /pubmed/35721833 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2021-100272 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Research
Sander, Timo
Ghanawi, Joly
Wilson, Emma
Muhammad, Sajjad
Macleod, Malcolm
Kahlert, Ulf Dietrich
Meta-analysis on reporting practices as a source of heterogeneity in in vitro cancer research
title Meta-analysis on reporting practices as a source of heterogeneity in in vitro cancer research
title_full Meta-analysis on reporting practices as a source of heterogeneity in in vitro cancer research
title_fullStr Meta-analysis on reporting practices as a source of heterogeneity in in vitro cancer research
title_full_unstemmed Meta-analysis on reporting practices as a source of heterogeneity in in vitro cancer research
title_short Meta-analysis on reporting practices as a source of heterogeneity in in vitro cancer research
title_sort meta-analysis on reporting practices as a source of heterogeneity in in vitro cancer research
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9171230/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35721833
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2021-100272
work_keys_str_mv AT sandertimo metaanalysisonreportingpracticesasasourceofheterogeneityininvitrocancerresearch
AT ghanawijoly metaanalysisonreportingpracticesasasourceofheterogeneityininvitrocancerresearch
AT wilsonemma metaanalysisonreportingpracticesasasourceofheterogeneityininvitrocancerresearch
AT muhammadsajjad metaanalysisonreportingpracticesasasourceofheterogeneityininvitrocancerresearch
AT macleodmalcolm metaanalysisonreportingpracticesasasourceofheterogeneityininvitrocancerresearch
AT kahlertulfdietrich metaanalysisonreportingpracticesasasourceofheterogeneityininvitrocancerresearch