Weissgerber, Tracey L.

Background We aimed to assess the longitudinal changes of glycocalyx, a proteoglycan/glycoprotein layer that lines and protects endothelial cells in normotensive pregnancies (NPs); to correlate glycocalyx parameters with kidney injury markers (podocin‐positive to nephrin‐positive [P/N] ratio); and to explore changes in P/N ratio in preeclampsia. Methods Plasma and urine samples and glycocalyx measurements using side‐stream darkfield imaging were collected at each trimester from pregnant women (n=31). Plasma glycocalyx components were measured by ELISA, and urinary P/N‐positive extracellular vesicles by flow cytometry. Results In NPs (n=26), glycocalyx degradation increased from the first to the second trimester ( P =0.008) and returned to first‐trimester values in the third trimester ( P =0.008). Microvascular perfusion decreased from the first to the second trimester ( P =0.006) and increased back to first‐trimester values by the third trimester ( P =0.039). Plasma syndecan 1 level showed a steady increase from the first to the second trimester ( P <0.001) and further in the third trimester ( P <0.001); hyaluronic acid increased from the first to the second trimester ( P =0.016) without further changes. Glycocalyx degradation was associated with an increase in P/N ratio from the first to the second trimester of NPs and remained stable through the third trimester. P/N ratio strongly correlated with elevated syndecan 1 and hyaluronic acid levels in the third trimester. Comparison of P/N ratios between NP and preeclampsia (n=5) showed higher values in preeclampsia across all trimesters ( P =0.028). Conclusions Glycocalyx changes during NPs are associated with elevated urinary podocyte markers. Increase in P/N ratio across NPs, and further in preeclampsia, suggests that podocyte injury in preeclampsia is extension of physiological changes in pregnancy, which may predate its clinical presentation.

Abstract Citations are an important, but often overlooked, part of every scientific paper. They allow the reader to trace the flow of evidence, serving as a gateway to relevant literature. Most scientists are aware of citations’ errors, but few appreciate the prevalence of these problems. The purpose of the present study was to examine how often frequently cited papers in biomedical scientific literature are cited inaccurately. The study included an active participation of the first authors of included papers; to first-hand verify the citations accuracy. Findings from feasibility study, where we reviewed 1540 articles containing 2526 citations of 14 most cited articles in which the authors were affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine University of Belgrade, were further evaluated for external confirmation in an independent verification set of articles. Verification set included 4912 citations identified in 2995 articles that cited 13 most cited articles published by authors affiliated with the Mayo Clinic Division of Nephrology and Hypertension. A citation was defined as being accurate if the cited article supported or was in accordance with the statement by citing authors. At least one inaccurate citation was found in 11 and 15% of articles in the feasibility study and verification set, respectively, suggesting that inaccurate citations are common in biomedical literature. The most common problem was the citation of nonexistent findings (38.4%), followed by an incorrect interpretation of findings (15.4%). One-fifth of inaccurate citations were due to chains of inaccurate citations. Based on these findings, several actions to reduce citation inaccuracies have been proposed.

Abstract Statistically significant findings are more likely to be published than non-significant or null findings, leaving scientists and healthcare personnel to make decisions based on distorted scientific evidence. Continuously expanding ´file drawers’ of unpublished data from well-designed experiments waste resources creates problems for researchers, the scientific community and the public. There is limited awareness of the negative impact that publication bias and selective reporting have on the scientific literature. Alternative publication formats have recently been introduced that make it easier to publish research that is difficult to publish in traditional peer reviewed journals. These include micropublications, data repositories, data journals, preprints, publishing platforms, and journals focusing on null or neutral results. While these alternative formats have the potential to reduce publication bias, many scientists are unaware that these formats exist and don’t know how to use them. Our open source file drawer data liberation effort (fiddle) tool (RRID:SCR_017327 available at: http://s-quest.bihealth.org/fiddle/) is a match-making Shiny app designed to help biomedical researchers to identify the most appropriate publication format for their data. Users can search for a publication format that meets their needs, compare and contrast different publication formats, and find links to publishing platforms. This tool will assist scientists in getting otherwise inaccessible, hidden data out of the file drawer into the scientific community and literature. We briefly highlight essential details that should be included to ensure reporting quality, which will allow others to use and benefit from research published in these new formats.

The need to protect public health during the current COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated conference cancellations on an unprecedented scale. As the scientific community adapts to new working conditions, it is important to recognize that some of our actions may disproportionately affect early-career researchers and scientists from countries with limited research funding. We encourage all conference organizers, funders and institutions who are able to do so to consider how they can mitigate the unintended consequences of conference and travel cancellations and we provide seven recommendations for how this could be achieved. The proposed solutions may also offer long-term benefits for those who normally cannot attend conferences, and thus lead to a more equitable future for generations of researchers.

Reports highlighting the problems with the standard practice of using bar graphs to show continuous data have prompted many journals to adopt new visualization policies. These policies encourage authors to avoid bar graphs and use graphics that show the data distribution; however, they provide little guidance on how to effectively display data. We conducted a systematic review of studies published in top peripheral vascular disease journals to determine what types of figures are used, and to assess the prevalence of suboptimal data visualization practices. Among papers with data figures, 47.7% of papers used bar graphs to present continuous data. This primer provides a detailed overview of strategies for addressing this issue by (1) outlining strategies for selecting the correct type of figure depending on the study design, sample size, and the type of variable; (2) examining techniques for making effective dot plots, box plots, and violin plots; and (3) illustrating how to avoid sending mixed messages by aligning the figure structure with the study design and statistical analysis. We also present solutions to other common problems identified in the systematic review. Resources include a list of free tools and templates that authors can use to create more informative figures and an online simulator that illustrates why summary statistics are meaningful only when there are enough data to summarize. Last, we consider steps that investigators can take to improve figures in the scientific literature.

Background The endothelial glycocalyx is a vasoprotective barrier between the blood and endothelium. We hypothesized that glycocalyx degradation is present in preeclampsia, a pregnancy‐specific hypertensive disorder characterized by endothelial dysfunction and activation. Methods and Results We examined the sublingual glycocalyx noninvasively using sidestream dark field imaging in the third trimester among women with normotensive pregnancies (n=73), early (n=14) or late (n=29) onset preeclampsia, or gestational diabetes mellitus (n=21). We calculated the width of the glycocalyx that was permeable to red blood cells (called the perfused boundary region , a measure of glycocalyx degradation) and the percentage of vessels that were filled with red blood cells ≥50% of the time (a measure of microvascular perfusion). In addition, we measured circulating levels of glycocalyx components, including heparan sulfate proteoglycans, hyaluronic acid, and SDC1 (syndecan 1), in a subset of participants by ELISA . Repeated‐measures ANOVA was performed to adjust for vessel diameter and caffeine intake. Women with early onset preeclampsia showed higher glycocalyx degradation, indicated by a larger perfused boundary region (mean: 2.14 [95% CI, 2.05–2.20]), than the remaining groups (mean: normotensive: 1.99 [95% CI, 1.95–2.02], P =0.002; late‐onset preeclampsia: 2.01 [95% CI, 1.96–2.07], P =0.024; gestational diabetes mellitus: 1.97 [95% CI, 1.91–2.04], P =0.004). The percentage of vessels that were filled with red blood cells was significantly lower in early onset preeclampsia. These structural glycocalyx changes were accompanied by elevated plasma concentrations of the glycocalyx components, heparan sulfate proteoglycans and hyaluronic acid, in early onset preeclampsia compared with normotensive pregnancy. Conclusions Glycocalyx degradation and reduced microvascular perfusion are associated with endothelial dysfunction and activation and vascular injury in early onset preeclampsia.

Transparent reporting is essential for the critical evaluation of studies. However, the reporting of statistical methods for studies in the biomedical sciences is often limited. This systematic review examines the quality of reporting for two statistical tests, t-tests and ANOVA, for papers published in a selection of physiology journals in June 2017. Of the 328 original research articles examined, 277 (84.5%) included an ANOVA or t-test or both. However, papers in our sample were routinely missing essential information about both types of tests: 213 papers (95% of the papers that used ANOVA) did not contain the information needed to determine what type of ANOVA was performed, and 26.7% of papers did not specify what post-hoc test was performed. Most papers also omitted the information needed to verify ANOVA results. Essential information about t-tests was also missing in many papers. We conclude by discussing measures that could be taken to improve the quality of reporting.