Table 5.

Explanatory Accompaniment to the Checklist for Methodological and Reporting Features of Molecular and/or Cellular Studies In Vitro

Data reportingWhen reporting results, investigators are encouraged to provide summary data as tables, whenever applicable (ie, authors should not limit data to bar graphs). At times, the data presented as bar graphs in themselves do not allow for precise reporting of measures of central tendency and spread for different time points. If data are presented as bar graphs, tabulated results can be provided in supplementary materials. When sample sizes are small, dot plots are preferable to bar graphs because they provide more information on variability.
Please indicate that large datasets, such as RNA-Seq and other omics, will be deposited to the appropriate public databases.
Statistical methodsAuthors are required to provide details on the statistical methods used for each analysis and hypothesis tested. Descriptive analyses should use measures of central tendency and spread suitable to the distribution of the data. Measures of spread (eg, SD or SE) should be suitably used, reported, and interpreted. The 95% confidence intervals are important to assess the size of the effect of interventions and should be specified for comparisons that are deemed important. Nonparametric tests are more appropriate for data that are not distributed normally. Commonly used tests, such as the Student t test, might not be appropriate when the sample size in each group is small. The levels of significance used for hypothesis testing, and if any adjustments were done for multiple or repeated testing, should be reported. Corrections for multiple hypotheses testing and multiple comparisons to avoid type I errors are essential, unless the study is exploratory or mechanistic in nature (vide supra). When the primary outcome of a study is negative, the probability of a type II error should be reported because sample sizes are often insufficient to rule out the null hypothesis with a high level of confidence.
Experimental details, ethics, and funding statementsIt is important to provide as many experimental details as necessary for interpretation, comparison, and, importantly, full replication of the study.
Any financial interest of the authors in the product being tested should be clearly indicated.
  • The above table is a modified version of a similar table promulgated by Stroke in 2011 and revised and expanded in 2016. The purpose of the table is to provide important metrics for the conduct and reporting of molecular and/or cellular studies in vitro. The recommendations provided herewith are intended to (i) clearly communicate the desired standards of rigor to authors and investigators and (ii) facilitate the journal’s overall mission of promoting robust, rigorous, and reproducible scientific inquiry and experimentation. The recommendations outlined herein are meant to be used by reviewers and editors as guidelines, not as rigid criteria for accepting or rejecting articles; thus, decisions on acceptance or rejection will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis depending on the individual content and characteristics of each submitted article. We promote the use of online supplements for providing detailed experimental protocols and communicating any secondary results not reported in the main article.