Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30370460›Full record

ArticleClinical & experimental metastasis2018

Transparent reporting of experimental parameters in assays measuring phenotypic steps in metastasis.

Robin Boiy, Jonas Steenbrugge, Jan Van Deun, An Hendrix, Evelyne Meyer, Olivier De Wever

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical & experimental metastasis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Robin BoiyLaboratory of Experimental Cancer Research, Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Jonas SteenbruggeLaboratory of Biochemistry, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Jan Van DeunLaboratory of Experimental Cancer Research, Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
An HendrixLaboratory of Experimental Cancer Research, Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Evelyne MeyerLaboratory of Biochemistry, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Olivier De WeverLaboratory of Experimental Cancer Research, Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. olivier.dewever@ugent.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metastasis is key to cancer mortality. Understanding its biology is vital for developing strategies to prevent and treat metastasis. Phenotypic assays to either study metastasis or evaluate anti-metastatic drugs are widely used in preclinical research. This technical note discusses the adherence of reporting essential experimental and methodological parameters in chemotactic invasion assays in vitro and spontaneous metastasis assays in vivo. Following the analysis of 130 recent (< 5 years) research papers, several shortcomings in reporting were identified. Therefore, we strongly argue to increase experimental rigor which should result in a significant improvement with respect to reproducibility of preclinical metastasis research.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalNeoplasm MetastasisAnimalsHumansIn Vitro TechniquesBenchmarkingChemotactic invasionMethodological rigorMinimal information guidelinesReproducibilitySpontaneous metastasis assay

Identifiers

PMID30370460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.