Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Centre of Clinical Microbiology, University College London, London, UK.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2021 Aug 12;76(9):2252-2259. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkab160.
This systematic review focuses on the use of the in vitro hollow fibre infection model (HFIM) for microbial culture. We summarize the direction of the field to date and propose best-practice principles for reporting of the applications.
Searches in six databases (MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, PubMed®, BIOSIS®, SCOPUS® and Cochrane®) up to January 2020 identified 129 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed and extracted data from each publication. The quality of reporting of microbiological and technical parameters was analysed.
Forty-seven out of 129 (36.4%) studies did not report the minimum pharmacokinetic parameters required in order to replicate the pharmacokinetic profile of HFIM experiments. Fifty-three out of 129 (41.1%) publications did not report the medium used in the HFIM. The overwhelming majority of publications did not perform any technical repeats [107/129 (82.9%)] or biological repeats [97/129 (75.2%)].
This review demonstrates that most publications provide insufficient data to allow for results to be evaluated, thus impairing the reproducibility of HFIM experiments. Therefore, there is a clear need for the development of laboratory standardization and improved reporting of HFIM experiments.
本系统评价聚焦于体外中空纤维感染模型(HFIM)在微生物培养方面的应用。我们总结了该领域迄今为止的发展方向,并提出了报告应用情况的最佳实践原则。
截至 2020 年 1 月,我们在六个数据库(MEDLINE®、EMBASE®、PubMed®、BIOSIS®、SCOPUS®和 Cochrane®)中进行了检索,共确定了 129 项符合纳入标准的研究。两位评审员独立评估并从每份出版物中提取数据。分析了微生物学和技术参数报告的质量。
在 129 项研究中,有 47 项(36.4%)未报告复制 HFIM 实验药代动力学特征所需的最低药代动力学参数。在 129 项出版物中,有 53 项(41.1%)未报告 HFIM 中使用的培养基。绝大多数出版物没有进行任何技术重复[107/129(82.9%)]或生物学重复[97/129(75.2%)]。
本综述表明,大多数出版物提供的数据不足以评估结果,从而影响 HFIM 实验的可重复性。因此,显然需要制定实验室标准化,并改进 HFIM 实验的报告。