Skip to main content
Download PDF

Quality of Reporting in Human Aortic Tissue Research — A Systematic Review

Artery Research volume 25, pages 3–10 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Ex vivo human tissue is a valuable research resource. However, if vital methodological information such as anatomical location, tissue processing procedures, or donor characteristics are not reported in scientific literature to a high standard, studies utilising ex vivo human tissue can be difficult to replicate. Furthermore, data analysis and interpretation based on these studies can be challenging. In this systematic review, we focus on the reported use of human aortic tissue in research. The human aorta is a complex tissue, with embryological, biochemical and biomechanical variations along its length, which alter with age, and differ between genders and ethnicities. The aorta therefore serves as an excellent case study for examining the importance of high quality and robust reporting of methodology when utilising human tissue samples, for reliable interpretation and reproducibility. In this systematic review, we sought to critically analyse scientific papers published between 1980 and 2017 which utilised human aortic tissue to determine whether the methodological information provided would be sufficient for replication, comparison with other studies and interpretation. Eight databases (Springerlink, ScienceDirect, PMC, PLoS, JSTOR, Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus) were mined for articles that contained the search term ‘human aortic tissue’ from January 1980 to August 2017. Following review, 143 full-text articles were selected, data extracted, tabulated and analysed. The review highlighted several areas where reporting of human aortic tissue use was insufficient for replication and thorough data interpretation. The use of control tissue was often poorly explained and in many cases, omitted completely. Sample size was largely difficult to calculate and 30% of studies did not provide this information. Age/gender information was absent in 30% of studies. Tissue storage and handling information was present in 78%, and 75% of studies gave information about statistical analyses but few gave enough information for replication. Overall the quality of reporting in many studies was deemed to be of a low standard for replication and reliable interpretation of the reported findings. Here we propose five simple recommendations for the reporting of human tissue with the primary aim of improving reproducibility and transparency in the sector, avoiding bias and maximising output.

References

  1. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86–9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Duff JM, Leather H, Walden EO, LaPlant KD, George TJ. Adequacy of published oncology randomized controlled trials to provide therapeutic details needed for clinical application. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:702–5.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dancey JE. From quality of publication to quality of care: translating trials to practice. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:670–1.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.

  5. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2010;8:e1000412.

  6. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000251.

  7. Leong XF, Ng CY, Jaarin K. Animal models in cardiovascular research: hypertension and atherosclerosis. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:528757.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Holmes AM, Solari R, Holgate ST. Animal models of asthma: value, limitations and opportunities for alternative approaches. Drug Discov Today 2011;16:659–70.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kola I. The state of innovation in drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;83:227–30.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2009;4:2.

  11. Edwards J, Belvisi M, Dahlen SE, Holgate S, Holmes A. Human tissue models for a human disease: what are the barriers? Thorax 2015;70:695–7.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Boese AC, Chang L, Yin KJ, Chen YE, Lee JP, Hamblin MH. Sex differences in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2018;314:H1137–H52.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fritze O, Romero B, Schleicher M, Jacob MP, Oh DY, Starcher B, et al. Age-related changes in the elastic tissue of the human aorta. J Vasc Res 2012;49:77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Moore HM, Kelly AB, Jewell SD, McShane LM, Clark DP, Greenspan R, et al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality (BRISQ). Cancer Cytopathol 2011;119:92–102.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Davies M, Guest PJ. Developmental abnormalities of the great vessels of the thorax and their embryological basis. Br J Radiol 2003;76:491–502.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kau T, Sinzig M, Gasser J, Lesnik G, Rabitsch E, Celedin S, et al. Aortic development and anomalies. Semin Intervent Radiol 2007;24:141–52.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Anderson RH, Webb S, Brown NA, Lamers W, Moorman A. Development of the heart: (3) formation of the ventricular outflow tracts, arterial valves, and intrapericardial arterial trunks. Heart 2003;89:1110–8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hickson SS, Butlin M, Graves M, Taviani V, Avolio AP, McEniery CM, et al. The relationship of age with regional aortic stiffness and diameter. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:1247–55.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mitchell GF, Parise H, Benjamin EJ, Larson MG, Keyes MJ, Vita JA, et al. Changes in arterial stiffness and wave reflection with advancing age in healthy men and women. Hypertension 2004;43:1239–45.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang J, Zhao X, Vatner DE, McNulty T, Bishop S, Sun Z, et al. Extracellular matrix disarray as a mechanism for greater abdominal versus thoracic aortic stiffness with aging in primates. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2016;36:700–6.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tonar Z, Kubíková T, Prior C, Demjén E, Liška V, Králíčková M, et al. Segmental and age differences in the elastin network, collagen, and smooth muscle phenotype in the tunica media of the porcine aorta. Ann Anat 2015;201:79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rylski B, Desjardins B, Moser W, Bavaria JE, Milewski RK. Gender-related changes in aortic geometry throughout life. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014;45:805–11.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schwab C, Bondada V, Sparks DL, Cahan LD, Geddes JW. Postmortem changes in the levels and localization of microtubule-associated proteins (tau, MAP2 and MAP1B) in the rat and human hippocampus. Hippocampus 1994;4:210–25.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sabucedo AJ, Furton KG. Estimation of postmortem interval using the protein marker cardiac Troponin I. Forensic Sci Int 2003;134:11–6.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ferreira PG, Muñoz-Aguirre M, Reverter F, Sá Godinho CP, Sousa A, Amadoz A, et al. The effects of death and post-mortem cold ischemia on human tissue transcriptomes. Nat Commun 2018;9:490.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Harkness MLR, Harkness RD, McDonald DA. The collagen and elastin content of the arterial wall in the dog. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1957;146:541–51.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hannawa KK, Eliason JL, Upchurch GR. Gender differences in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Vascular 2009;17:S30–S9.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nienaber CA, Fattori R, Mehta RH, Richartz BM, Evangelista A, Petzsch M, et al. Gender-related differences in acute aortic dissection. Circulation 2004;109:3014–21.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Villard C, Eriksson P, Swedenborg J, Hultgren R. Differences in elastin and elastolytic enzymes between men and women with abdominal aortic aneurysm. Aorta (Stamford) 2014;2:179–85.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Salem MK, Rayt HS, Hussey G, Rafelt S, Nelson CP, Sayers RD, et al. Should Asian men be included in abdominal aortic aneurysm screening programmes? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2009;38:748–9.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lederle FA, Johnson GR, Wilson SE, Chute EP, Hye RJ, Makaroun MS, et al. The aneurysm detection and management study screening program: validation cohort and final results. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1425–30.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rosero EB, Peshock RM, Khera A, Clagett P, Lo H, Timaran CH. Sex, race, and age distributions of mean aortic wall thickness in a multiethnic population-based sample. J Vasc Surg 2011;53:950–7.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Morris AA, Patel RS, Binongo JNG, Poole J, Al Mheid I, Ahmed Y, et al. Racial differences in arterial stiffness and microcirculatory function between Black and White Americans. J Am Heart Assoc 2013;2:e002154.

  34. Lefferts WK, Augustine JA, Spartano NL, Atallah-Yunes NH, Heffernan KS, Gump BB. Racial differences in aortic stiffness in children. J Pediatr 2017;180:62–7.

    Google Scholar 

  35. O’Leary SA, Doyle BJ, McGloughlin TM. The impact of long term freezing on the mechanical properties of porcine aortic tissue. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2014;37:165–73.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chow MJ, Zhang Y. Changes in the mechanical and biochemical properties of aortic tissue due to cold storage. J Surg Res 2011;171:434–42.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Stemper BD, Yoganandan N, Stineman MR, Gennarelli TA, Baisden JL, Pintar FA. Mechanics of fresh, refrigerated, and frozen arterial tissue. J Surg Res 2007;139:236–42.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ghosn MG, Mashiatulla M, Mohamed MA, Syed S, Castro-Chavez F, Morrisett JD, et al. Time dependent changes in aortic tissue during cold storage in physiological solution. Biochim Biophys Acta 2011;1810:555–60.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical, Materials and Aerospace Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Liverpool, L69 3GH, Liverpool, UK

    Ya-Hua Chim & Riaz Akhtar

  2. Computational Biology Facility, Technology Directorate, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Eva Caamaño-Gutiérrez

  3. Department of Biochemistry, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Eva Caamaño-Gutiérrez, Jillian Madine & Hannah Angharad Davies

  4. Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK

    Rashmi Birla & Mark Field

  5. Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Jillian Madine, Mark Field, Riaz Akhtar & Hannah Angharad Davies

Authors
  1. Ya-Hua Chim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva Caamaño-Gutiérrez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rashmi Birla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jillian Madine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark Field
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Riaz Akhtar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hannah Angharad Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hannah Angharad Davies.

Additional information

Peer review under responsibility of the Association for Research into Arterial Structure and Physiology

Rights and permissions

This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chim, YH., Caamaño-Gutiérrez, E., Birla, R. et al. Quality of Reporting in Human Aortic Tissue Research — A Systematic Review. Artery Res 25, 3–10 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2991/artres.k.191106.003

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/artres.k.191106.003

Keywords

Artery Research

ISSN: 1876-4401

Contact us