Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41782167›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026

Reporting quality of quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methods in scientific publications.

Natascha Drude, Camila Baselly, Małgorzata Anna Gazda, Jan-Niklas May, Lena Tienken, Parya Abbasi, Tracey Weissgerber, Steven Burgess

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Natascha Drude *QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. natascha-ingrid.drude@bih-charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7153-2894
Camila Baselly *QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Małgorzata Anna GazdaDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Montréal, 1375 Avenue Thérèse-Lavoie-Roux, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3J7, Canada.
Jan-Niklas MayInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Lena TienkenMedizinisches Kompetenzzentrum, c/o HCx Consulting GmbH, Brandenburg, Germany.
Parya AbbasiQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Tracey WeissgerberQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Steven BurgessDepartment of Plant Science, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, Champaign, USA. sjb287@illinois.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReproducibility remains a major concern in scientific research, particularly in complex methods such as quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Stringent reporting standards are essential to ensure reproducibility, validity of data, and trustworthiness of conclusions. The MIQE (Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments) guidelines, introduced in 2009, aimed to improve reporting practices. However, a 2013 study highlighted persistent deficiencies. To further assess the transparency and completeness of qPCR reporting, we conducted a systematic evaluation of recently published research.

methodsWe systematically reviewed research articles employing qPCR that were published in the top 20 journals in genetics and heredity (n = 186) and plant sciences (n = 246). Articles were assessed for completeness of methodological reporting with respect to RNA quality control, reference gene reporting, and details of RNA extraction, RNA-to-cDNA conversion, and qPCR procedures. Frequencies of reporting deficiencies were recorded and descriptively analyzed.

resultsOur analysis identified frequent omissions and insufficient detail in reporting key information required to evaluate and replicate qPCR experiments. RNA integrity was reported in only 7-10% of studies, and assessment methods or instruments used for integrity evaluation were specified in just 14-16%. While primer sequences were often disclosed (88-93%), the traceability of housekeeping/reference genes was limited: accession numbers were provided in only 11% of genetics/heredity papers and 32% of plant science papers. Critical methodological details-including kit names, catalog numbers, and reagent specifications for RNA extraction, RNA-to-cDNA conversion, and qPCR-were also frequently missing, appearing in only 7-14% of reports.

conclusionsThis study underscores the urgent need for improved reporting practices in qPCR experiments. Greater emphasis should be placed on quality controls, detailed descriptions of reagents and materials, and increased analytical transparency. Addressing these deficiencies is vital to enhance reproducibility and to strengthen the trustworthiness of qPCR-based research. Potential solutions include encouraging the citation of protocols in online repositories, providing structured reporting templates, and developing automated tools to support compliance with MIQE standards.

trial registrationNot applicable (not a clinical trial). The study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9ZP5M .

Indexed as

Cross-sectional studyGeneticsMeta-researchPlant scienceQPCRReporting standards

Identifiers

PMID41782167
PMCPMC12961777

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.