Reevaluating methods reporting practices to improve reproducibility: an analysis of methodological rigor for the Langendorff whole heart technique

Abstract

In recent decades, the scientific community has seen an increased interest in rigor and reproducibility. In 2017, concerns about methodological thoroughness and reporting practices were implicated as significant barriers to reproducibility within the preclinical cardiovascular literature, particularly in studies using animal research. The Langendorff, whole heart technique has proven to be an invaluable research tool, being modified in a myriad of ways to probe questions across the spectrum of physiological and pathophysiological functions of the heart. As a result, significant variability in the application of the Langendorff technique exists. This literature review quantifies the different methods employed in the implementation of the Langendorff technique and provides brief examples of how individual parametric differences can impact the outcomes and interpretation of studies. From 2017 to 2020, significant variability of animal models, anesthesia, cannulation time, perfusate composition, pH, and temperature demonstrate that the technique has diversified to meet new challenges and answer different scientific questions. The review also reveals which individual methods are most frequently reported, even if there is no explicit agreement upon which parameters should be reported. The analysis of methods related to the Langendorff technique suggests a framework for considering methodological approach when interpreting seemingly contradictory results, rather than concluding that results are irreproducible.