Reporting of methods for automated devices: A systematic review and recommendation for studies using FlowCam for phytoplankton

Abstract

Accurate and detailed reporting of methods is essential for scientific progress, yet it is widely accepted that authors across all scientific fields tend to provide insufficient methods detail. Given the recent proliferation of automated and semi‐automated technologies for data collection, to address this widespread issue the details needed for interpretation and reproducibility for each specific technique first need to be identified. A systematic literature review assessed the comprehensiveness of method details reported by 116 peer‐reviewed studies published between 2017 and 2020 using the FlowCam (a widely used imaging flow cytometer) to image phytoplankton, finding all to be lacking in critical details, inhibiting reproducibility, and limiting the veracity of some findings. Through this review and three case studies, we identify several key method details that should be reported by FlowCam studies to ensure their findings are credible, comparable, and replicable and illustrate the wide‐reaching implications for not doing so. Future studies using FlowCam for phytoplankton analyses should ensure clear reporting of all relevant details relating to the FlowCam unit, sample preparation, run settings, post‐processing of images, and the considered use of only verified measurement outputs. A methods reporting template is presented as a guideline intended to enhance the quality, interpretability, and repeatability of future FlowCam papers. The pervasiveness of inadequacies in FlowCam methods reporting identified here highlights how vital it is for users of any automated or semi‐automated scientific technologies to have a clear understanding of the impact of all method details on their findings, and to report these details adequately.

Comparison of advanced methodologies for diatom identification within dynamic coastal communities

“…Approximately 25 mL of seawater was collected from each sample and processed with the FlowCam. All necessary settings for reproducing the FlowCam workflow are described below (Owen et al 2022). The whole water samples were analyzed using a Portable Series FlowCam with a peristaltic pump set to autoimage mode using a ×10 objective with a standard 100 μ m glass flow cell installed.…”

“…There has been substantial research comparing results from advancing methods for phytoplankton community composition analysis to results from traditional light microscopy techniques (Stern et al 2018; Owen et al 2022). Studies comparing phytoplankton cell abundance results for FlowCam and light microscopy concluded that the two methods yield comparable results for quantitative abundance (Álvarez et al 2014; Bergkemper and Weisse 2018).…”

Using FlowCam and molecular techniques to assess the diversity of Cyanobacteria species in water used for food production

“…This tube was selected because it covers the most dominant sizes of colonies that are found in water 35 . Therefore, colonies that are larger than 100 µm were excluded by filtering the sample to prevent clogging of particles in the filter tube 42 . A minimum of 2000 photo images were captured in each water sample from the sampling site.…”

Photonic Microfluidic Technologies for Phytoplankton Research

“…Ref. [ 126 ] systematically reviews articles from 2017 to 2020 using the commercial device FlowCam for phytoplankton research. For this reason, in this review, we will focus only on novel proposals of the last five years.…”