Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30124809›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2018

Balancing sufficiency and impact in reporting standards for mass spectrometry imaging experiments.

Ove J R Gustafsson, Lyron J Winderbaum, Mark R Condina, Berin A Boughton, Brett R Hamilton, Eivind A B Undheim, Michael Becker, Peter Hoffmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ove J R GustafssonARC Centre of Excellence in Convergent Bio-Nano Science & Technology (CBNS), University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, South Australia 5095, Australia.
Lyron J WinderbaumFuture Industries Institute, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, South Australia 5095, Australia.
Mark R CondinaFuture Industries Institute, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, South Australia 5095, Australia.
Berin A BoughtonMetabolomics Australia, School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia.
Brett R HamiltonCentre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia.
Eivind A B UndheimCentre for Advanced Imaging, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia.
Michael BeckerBoehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Biberach a.d. Riss 88397, Germany.
Peter HoffmannFuture Industries Institute, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, South Australia 5095, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reproducibility, or a lack thereof, is an increasingly important topic across many research fields. A key aspect of reproducibility is accurate reporting of both experiments and the resulting data. Herein, we propose a reporting guideline for mass spectrometry imaging (MSI). Previous standards have laid out guidelines sufficient to guarantee a certain quality of reporting; however, they set a high bar and as a consequence can be exhaustive and broad, thus limiting uptake.To help address this lack of uptake, we propose a reporting supplement-Minimum Information About a Mass Spectrometry Imaging Experiment (MIAMSIE)-and its abbreviated reporting standard version, MSIcheck. MIAMSIE is intended to improve author-driven reporting. It is intentionally not exhaustive, but is rather designed for extensibility and could therefore eventually become analogous to existing standards that aim to guarantee reporting quality. Conversely, its abbreviated form MSIcheck is intended as a diagnostic tool focused on key aspects in MSI reporting.We discuss how existing standards influenced MIAMSIE/MSIcheck and how these new approaches could positively impact reporting quality, followed by test implementation of both standards to demonstrate their use. For MIAMSIE, we report on author reviews of four articles and a dataset. For MSIcheck, we show a snapshot review of a one-month subset of the MSI literature that indicated issues with data provision and the reporting of both data analysis steps and calibration settings for MS systems. Although our contribution is MSI specific, we believe the underlying approach could be considered as a general strategy for improving scientific reporting.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansMass Spectrometry

Identifiers

PMID30124809
PMCPMC6203951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.