4.7 Review

Application of the hollow fibre infection model (HFIM) in antimicrobial development: a systematic review and recommendations of reporting

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
Volume 76, Issue 9, Pages 2252-2259

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkab160

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University College London Institute for Global Health (IGH)
  2. University College London Centre for Clinical Microbiology (CCM)
  3. United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC) Fellowship [P014534]
  4. Sir Henry Dale Fellowship - Wellcome Trust [220587/Z/20/Z]
  5. Sir Henry Dale Fellowship - Royal Society [220587/Z/20/Z]
  6. Shionogi B.V
  7. Wellcome Trust [220587/Z/20/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  8. MRC [MR/N025989/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review focused on the use of the in vitro hollow fibre infection model (HFIM) for microbial culture. The majority of publications lacked sufficient data to allow for results evaluation, indicating a need for improved reporting and laboratory standardization of HFIM experiments.
Objectives: 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. Methods: Searches in six databases (MEDLINE (R), EMBASE (R), PubMed (R), BIOSIS (R), SCOPUS (R) and Cochrane (R)) 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. Results: 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%)]. Conclusions: 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available