Emily Draeger1, Amit Sawant2, Christopher Johnstone3, Brandon Koger4, Stewart Becker5, Zeljko Vujaskovic6, Isabel-Lauren Jackson3, Yannick Poirier7. 1. Division of Translational Radiation Sciences, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Therapeutic Oncology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Division of Translational Radiation Sciences, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Division of Translational Radiation Sciences, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 5. Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. Division of Translational Radiation Sciences, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Division of Clinical Programs, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. Division of Translational Radiation Sciences, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: yannick.poirier@umm.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A large proportion of preclinical or translational studies using radiation have poor replicability. For a study involving radiation exposure to be replicable, interpretable, and comparable, its experimental methodology must be well reported, particularly in terms of irradiation protocol, including the amount, rate, quality, and geometry of radiation delivery. Here we perform the first large-scale literature review of the current state of reporting of essential experimental physics and dosimetry details in the scientific literature. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 1758 peer-reviewed articles from 469 journals, we evaluated the reporting of basic experimental physics and dosimetry details recommended by the authoritative National Institute of Standards and Technology symposium. RESULTS: We demonstrate that although some physics and dosimetry parameters, such as dose, source type, and energy, are well reported, the majority are not. Furthermore, highly cited journals and articles are systematically more likely to be lacking experimental details related to the irradiation protocol. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show a crucial deficiency in the reporting of basic experimental details and severely affect the reproducibility and translatability of a large proportion of radiation biology studies.
PURPOSE: A large proportion of preclinical or translational studies using radiation have poor replicability. For a study involving radiation exposure to be replicable, interpretable, and comparable, its experimental methodology must be well reported, particularly in terms of irradiation protocol, including the amount, rate, quality, and geometry of radiation delivery. Here we perform the first large-scale literature review of the current state of reporting of essential experimental physics and dosimetry details in the scientific literature. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 1758 peer-reviewed articles from 469 journals, we evaluated the reporting of basic experimental physics and dosimetry details recommended by the authoritative National Institute of Standards and Technology symposium. RESULTS: We demonstrate that although some physics and dosimetry parameters, such as dose, source type, and energy, are well reported, the majority are not. Furthermore, highly cited journals and articles are systematically more likely to be lacking experimental details related to the irradiation protocol. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show a crucial deficiency in the reporting of basic experimental details and severely affect the reproducibility and translatability of a large proportion of radiation biology studies.
Authors: Kelsey L Corrigan; Stephen Kry; Rebecca M Howell; Ramez Kouzy; Joseph Abi Jaoude; Roshal R Patel; Anuja Jhingran; Cullen Taniguchi; Albert C Koong; Mary Fran McAleer; Paige Nitsch; Claus Rödel; Emmanouil Fokas; Bruce D Minsky; Prajnan Das; C David Fuller; Ethan B Ludmir Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Martin Bucher; Tina Weiss; David Endesfelder; Francois Trompier; Yoann Ristic; Patrizia Kunert; Helmut Schlattl; Augusto Giussani; Ursula Oestreicher Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-05-17
Authors: Samuel A Sprowls; Vincenzo J Pizzuti; William Pentz; Divine C Nwafor; R Alfredo C Siochi; Paul R Lockman Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Kathryn H Brown; Mihaela Ghita; Giuseppe Schettino; Kevin M Prise; Karl T Butterworth Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Jos Philipp; Ronan Le Gleut; Christine von Toerne; Prabal Subedi; Omid Azimzadeh; Michael J Atkinson; Soile Tapio Journal: Proteomes Date: 2020-10-26
Authors: An Aerts; Uta Eberlein; Sören Holm; Roland Hustinx; Mark Konijnenberg; Lidia Strigari; Fijs W B van Leeuwen; Gerhard Glatting; Michael Lassmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 9.236