↓ Skip to main content

Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT‐qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Investigation, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
67 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT‐qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Investigation, September 2017
DOI 10.1111/eci.12801
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Bustin, Tania Nolan

Abstract

Poorly executed and inadequately reported molecular measurement methods are amongst the causes underlying the lack of reproducibility of much biomedical research. Although several high impact factor journals have acknowledged their past failure to scrutinise adequately the technical soundness of manuscripts, there is a perplexing reluctance to implement basic corrective measures. The reverse transcription real time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) is probably the most straightforward measurement technique available for RNA quantification and is widely used in research, diagnostic, forensic and biotechnology applications. Despite the impact of the minimum information for the publication of quantitative PCR experiments (MIQE) guidelines, which aim to improve the robustness and the transparency of reporting of RT-qPCR data, we demonstrate that elementary protocol errors, inappropriate data analysis and inadequate reporting continue to be rife and conclude that the majority of published RT-qPCR data are likely to represent technical noise. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 232 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 40 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 13%
Student > Bachelor 29 13%
Student > Master 27 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 61 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 59 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 12 5%
Engineering 7 3%
Other 36 16%
Unknown 70 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2022.
All research outputs
#735,430
of 25,756,531 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Investigation
#59
of 1,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,037
of 325,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Investigation
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,756,531 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,524 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.