Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 26, 2026
08:03
Diagnosis of Ecto- and Endoparasites in Laboratory Rats and Mice
Published on: September 6, 2011
43.4K
The quality of methods reporting in parasitology experiments
Oscar Flórez-Vargas1, Michael Bramhall1, Harry Noyes2
1Bio-health Informatics Group, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Plos One
|July 31, 2014
Summary
Experimental parasitology research lacks reproducibility due to poor methods reporting. This study highlights concerns in trypanosomiasis and other parasitic infections, proposing guidelines for better reporting to improve data integration and comparison.
Area of Science:
- Experimental parasitology
- Scientific reproducibility
- Gene expression studies
Background:
- Reproducibility is a growing concern in scientific research.
- Detailed methods reporting is crucial for experiment reproducibility, data integration, and comparison.
- Current reporting standards in experimental parasitology may hinder these critical aspects.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the quality of methods reporting in experimental parasitology, focusing on trypanosomiasis.
- To compare methods reporting across various parasitic and non-parasitic infection models.
- To identify parameters influencing reproducibility and data integration.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review of PubMed publications (2000-2012) on gene expression in Trypanosoma spp. infected cells/animals (n=23).
- Development and application of a checklist for essential reporting parameters.
- Evaluation of other parasitic (Leishmania, Toxoplasma, Plasmodium, Trichuris, Schistosoma) and non-parasitic (Mycobacterium) infections.
- Correlation analysis between reporting quality and bibliometric parameters (impact factor, citations, h-index).
Main Results:
- Trichuriasis experiments demonstrated the highest reporting scores, with one paper achieving 100%.
- Trypanosoma spp. articles averaged 65.5% score (range 32-90%), indicating significant reporting gaps.
- No correlation was found between bibliometric parameters and the quality of methods reporting.
- Reporting quality has not improved over time despite known impact on results.
Conclusions:
- The quality of methods reporting in experimental parasitology is a significant concern and requires improvement.
- Current reporting practices impede the valid reproduction, integration, and comparison of research findings.
- The proposed checklist parameters should be adopted as guidelines to enhance reporting standards for experimental infection models.
