Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38964352›Full record

ArticleToxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology2024

Identifying assessment criteria for in vitro studies: a method and item bank.

Paul Whaley, Robyn B Blain, Derek Draper, Andrew A Rooney, Vickie R Walker, Stephen Wattam, Rob Wright, Carlijn R Hooijmans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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.

Paul WhaleyEvidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4021-0785
Robyn B BlainICF International, 1902 Reston Metro Plaza, Reston, VA 20190, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1859-5554
Derek DraperDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Care (Meta Research Team), Radboudumc, 6525 GA Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Andrew A RooneyNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1756-5185
Vickie R WalkerNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC 27709, United States.
Stephen WattamWAP Consulting, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0208-686X
Rob WrightWelch Medical Library, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, United States.
Carlijn R HooijmansEvidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6435-5714

Funding

Scientific Cyberinfrastructure Research ProgramZIAES103385 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WALKER, VICKIE · 2022 to 2025
$17.4M
Consumer Products and Therapeutics Research ProgramZIAES103379 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI TAYLOR, KYLA · 2022 to 2025
$9.9M
Evidence-Based Toxicology CollaborationJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To support the development of appraisal tools for assessing the quality of in vitro studies, we developed a method for literature-based discovery of study assessment criteria, used the method to create an item bank of assessment criteria of potential relevance to in vitro studies, and analyzed the item bank to discern and critique current approaches for appraisal of in vitro studies. We searched four research indexes and included any document that identified itself as an appraisal tool for in vitro studies, was a systematic review that included a critical appraisal step, or was a reporting checklist for in vitro studies. We abstracted, normalized, and categorized all criteria applied by the included appraisal tools to create an "item bank" database of issues relevant to the assessment of in vitro studies. The resulting item bank consists of 676 unique appraisal concepts from 67 appraisal tools. We believe this item bank is the single most comprehensive resource of its type to date, should be of high utility for future tool development exercises, and provides a robust methodology for grounding tool development in the existing literature. Although we set out to develop an item bank specifically targeting in vitro studies, we found that many of the assessment concepts we discovered are readily applicable to other study designs. Item banks can be of significant value as a resource; however, there are important challenges in developing, maintaining, and extending them of which researchers should be aware.

Indexed as

Research DesignAnimalsDatabases, FactualHumansIn Vitro Techniquescritical appraisalin vitroNAMsrisk of biasstudy quality

Identifiers

PMID38964352
PMCPMC11424884

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.