Using a sample of 201 participants and a between-subjects design, the perceived professionalism—suitability, capability, ease to talk to and friendliness—of male and female dentists and lawyers in various attires was examined. Results showed an absolute preference for male dentists and lawyers in professional and formal attire, respectively. Male dentists and lawyers in professional and formal attire were further rated as more suitable, capable, easier to talk to, and friendlier than female professionals, and than those dressed in smart or casual attire. Results are discussed in terms of positive dental outcomes and legal representation. Limitations are considered.
Background:
Heterogeneity of results of exact same research experiments oppose a significant socio-economic burden. In vitro research presents the early step of basic science and drug development projects. 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. Glioblastoma is a form of brain cancer with largely unmet clinical need.
Methods:
Here we use systematic review to describe reporting practices in in vitro glioblastoma research using the U87-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.
Results:
In 137 identified articles, the overall methodological reporting is disappointing, e.g., the control type, mediums glucose level and cell density are reported in only 36.5, 21.2 and 16.8 percent of the articles, respectively. After adjustments for different drug concentrations and treatment durations, a three-level meta-analysis proves meaningful results heterogeneity across the studies (I2 = 70.1%).
Conclusions:
Our results further support the ongoing efforts of establishing consensus reporting practices to elevate durability of results. By doing so, we hope that this work will raise awareness of how stricter reporting may help to improve the frequency of successful translation of preclinical results into human application, not only in neuro-oncology.
Funding:
We received no specific funding for this project.
ObjectivesHeterogeneity 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.MethodsHere, 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).ResultsIn 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 (I2=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.ConclusionsOur 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).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.