The Quality of Methods Reporting in Parasitology Experiments

Abstract

There is a growing concern both inside and outside the scientific community over the lack of reproducibility of experiments. The depth and detail of reported methods are critical to the reproducibility of findings, but also for making it possible to compare and integrate data from different studies. In this study, we evaluated in detail the methods reporting in a comprehensive set of trypanosomiasis experiments that should enable valid reproduction, integration and comparison of research findings. We evaluated a subset of other parasitic (Leishmania, Toxoplasma, Plasmodium, Trichuris and Schistosoma) and non-parasitic (Mycobacterium) experimental infections in order to compare the quality of method reporting more generally. A systematic review using PubMed (2000–2012) of all publications describing gene expression in cells and animals infected with Trypanosoma spp was undertaken based on PRISMA guidelines; 23 papers were identified and included. We defined a checklist of essential parameters that should be reported and have scored the number of those parameters that are reported for each publication. Bibliometric parameters (impact factor, citations and h-index) were used to look for association between Journal and Author status and the quality of method reporting. Trichuriasis experiments achieved the highest scores and included the only paper to score 100% in all criteria. The mean of scores achieved by Trypanosoma articles through the checklist was 65.5% (range 32–90%). Bibliometric parameters were not correlated with the quality of method reporting (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient <−0.5; p>0.05). Our results indicate that the quality of methods reporting in experimental parasitology is a cause for concern and it has not improved over time, despite there being evidence that most of the assessed parameters do influence the results. We propose that our set of parameters be used as guidelines to improve the quality of the reporting of experimental infection models as a pre-requisite for integrating and comparing sets of data.

Epilogue: Future of Sex and Gender-Based Studies in Infectious Diseases

“…A recent report which examined the quality of sex-specific reporting in animal trypanosomiasis experiments found that despite known sex differences in mice with trypanosomiasis, only 70 % of the studies reported the sex of animals used in the experimental infection, and fewer (25 %) of the studies reported the sex of animals used to maintain their parasite stocks (Fl orez-Vargas et al, 2014). Similar omissions in other diseases are evident in the literature (Beery and Zucker 2011).…”

The Road to Reproducibility in Animal Research

“…Most biomedical research journals, however, endorse ARRIVE but do not require completion of a checklist. Despite endorsement, however, subsequent surveys revealed that many published articles still lack key information required by ARRIVE (8–11) .…”

Sex and Gender Differences in Infection and Treatments for Infectious Diseases

“…In 2013, the United States FDA recommended lower doses of insomnia drugs for women than men (FDA 2013). Drugs containing zolpidem, in particular, remain in circulation longer, take longer to metabolize, and result in a longer duration of impairment of mental alertness in women compared with men.…”

“…Drugs containing zolpidem, in particular, remain in circulation longer, take longer to metabolize, and result in a longer duration of impairment of mental alertness in women compared with men. The FDA cut the recommended dose of sleep medications that contain zolpidem in half for women (FDA 2013). Media outlets extensively reported this story as novel and newsworthyprimarily on the basis that drugs may need to be administered with sex-specific dosage recommendations.…”