Evidence provided by high-impact cell culture studies does not support authors' claims

BackgroundReliability of preclinical research is of critical concern. Previous studies demonstrate the low reproducibility in research and recommend raising standards to improve reproducibility and robustness. One understudied aspect of this quality issue is the harmony between the hypotheses and the experimental design in published work. Methods and findingsIn this study we focused on highly cited cell culture studies and investigated whether the claims of the study are backed with sufficient experimental evidence or not. We created an open access database containing all 282 claims asserted by 103 different high-impact articles as well as the results of this study. Our findings revealed that only 64% of all claims were sufficiently supported by evidence and there were concerning misinterpretations such as considering the results of tetrazolium salt reduction assays as indicators of cell death or apoptosis. ConclusionsOur analysis revealed an alarming discordance between the actual experimental findings and the way that the manuscript is written to discuss them in highly cited cell culture studies. In order to improve quality of pre-clinical research, we require a clear nomenclature by which different cell culture claims are distinctively categorized, materials and methods sections to be written more meticulously and cell culture techniques to be selected and utilized more carefully.