Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32823284›Full record

ReviewJournal of radiation research2020

Reporting of methodologies used for clonogenic assays to determine radiosensitivity.

Takahiro Oike, Shuichiro Komatsu, Yuka Komatsu, Ankita Nachankar, Narisa Dewi Maulany Darwis, Atsushi Shibata, Tatsuya Ohno

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of radiation research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Recommendations for reporting preclinical radiobiological studies in targeted radionuclide therapy.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Takahiro OikeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma 371-8511, Japan.
Shuichiro KomatsuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma 371-8511, Japan.
Yuka KomatsuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma 371-8511, Japan.
Ankita NachankarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma 371-8511, Japan.
Narisa Dewi Maulany DarwisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma 371-8511, Japan.
Atsushi ShibataGunma University Initiative for Advanced Research (GIAR), 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma 371-8511, Japan.
Tatsuya OhnoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-39-22, Showa-machi, Maebashi, Gunma 371-8511, Japan.
Gunma University · JPGunma University Hospital · JPRumah Sakit Umum Pusat Nasional Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo · ID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiotherapy treatment strategies should be personalized based on the radiosensitivity of individual tumors. Clonogenic assays are the gold standard method for in vitro assessment of radiosensitivity. Reproducibility is the critical factor for scientific rigor; however, this is reduced by insufficient reporting of methodologies. In reality, the reporting standards of methodologies pertaining to clonogenic assays remain unclear. To address this, we performed a literature search and qualitative analysis of the reporting of methodologies pertaining to clonogenic assays. A comprehensive literature review identified 1672 papers that report the radiosensitivity of human cancer cells based on clonogenic assays. From the identified papers, important experimental parameters (i.e. number of biological replicates, technical replicates, radiation source and dose rate) were recorded and analyzed. We found that, among the studies, (i) 30.5% did not report biological or technical replicates; (ii) 47.0% did not use biological or technical replicates; (iii) 3.8% did not report the radiation source; and (iv) 32.3% did not report the dose rate. These data suggest that reporting of methodologies pertaining to clonogenic assays in a considerable number of previously published studies is insufficient, thereby threatening reproducibility. This highlights the need to raise awareness of standardization of the methodologies used to conduct clonogenic assays.

Indexed as

Biological AssayCell Line, TumorCells, CulturedCell SurvivalGamma RaysHumansNeoplasmsNeural Networks, ComputerRadiation OncologyRadiation ToleranceReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeTumor Stem Cell AssayX-Rayscancerclonogenic assaysradiationradiosensitivityreplicates

Identifiers

PMID32823284
PMCPMC7674694
OpenAlexW3081443292

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.