Minimal information for studies of extracellular vesicles (MISEV2023): From basic to advanced approaches

Joshua A Welsh; Deborah C. I. Goberdhan; Lorraine O’Driscoll; Edit I. Buzás; Cherie Blenkiron

doi:10.1002/jev2.12404

Minimal information for studies of extracellular vesicles (MISEV2023): From basic to advanced approaches

Joshua A Welsh, Deborah C. I. Goberdhan, Lorraine O’Driscoll, Edit I. Buzás, Cherie Blenkiron, Benedetta Bussolati, Houjian Cai, Dolores Di Vizio, Tom A. P. Driedonks, Uta Erdbrügger, Juan Manuel Falcón‐Pérez, Qing‐Ling Fu, Andrew F. Hill, Metka Lenassi, Sai Kiang Lim...

Taylor & Francis (2024) • Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages e12404-e12404

GuidelineGuidelinePDF AvailableGrade Eligible⚠️ Moderate Risk Flags

Overall Assessment

Strong Methodological Quality

Assessment created by PaperScorers Medical AI v0.1.0 on Dec 14, 2025

B-

72/100

Key Takeaways

•Adopts EV as umbrella term; discourages biogenesis labels without proof.
•Emphasises pre-analytics, separation specificity, and orthogonal characterisation.
•Recommends reporting frameworks (EV‑TRACK, MIFlowCyt‑EV, MIBlood‑EV).
•Highlights EV corona concept and co‑isolates; urges transparency on methods.
•Provides technique‑specific reporting checklists across platforms.

Conclusion

Robust, community‑vetted guidance updating MISEV with clearer nomenclature and practical reporting/quality steps to improve rigour and reproducibility.

Quick Actions

Read Full Paper

Quality Dimensions

Bias & Integrity

COI handling, outcome switching, selective reporting

B-70

Methods Rigour

Protocol clarity, sampling, controls

B78

External Validity

Generalisability, setting, population

B+80

Transparency & Reproducibility

Data/code/materials availability, preregistration

C-55

Significance & Novelty

Contribution vs prior art; context if known

A-85

Statistical Validity

Models, assumptions, multiplicity, CI priority

C+65

Integrity & Transparency

Integrity checks

P-hacking risk?

?

None suspected

Signs of selective hypothesis testing or analysis choices that could inflate false positive rates.

Outcome switching?

?

None suspected

Evidence that primary outcomes were changed during or after the study, potentially distorting results.

Conflict of interest?

?

Review recommended

Authors have financial or other relationships that could bias research findings.

Data integrity issues?

?

None suspected

Concerns about the accuracy, completeness, or authenticity of the reported data.

Open science signals

Research data

?

Not shared

Raw data used in the analyses is publicly available or accessible upon request.

Analysis code

?

Not applicable

Code or scripts used to analyze the data are shared for reproducibility.

Study materials

?

Not applicable

Protocols, questionnaires, and other materials are publicly available.

Premise

Primary Research Question

What are the updated minimal information and best practices for EV studies (MISEV2023)?

Hypothesis is Falsifiable

—Not specified

Consensus guidance rather than a testable hypothesis.

PICO Framework

Population—Not specified

Guideline; no patient or animal population.

Intervention—Not specified

No intervention; methodological recommendations.

Comparison—Not specified

No comparative arms.

Outcome—Not specified

No clinical/biomarker endpoints; recommendations only.

Literature Positioning

Literature Review Balanced

Well covered

Builds on MISEV2014/2018 and ISEV task force papers; broad citations.

Evidence: p. 3, Table 1

Research Gap Clearly Stated

Well covered

Need to update nomenclature, separation and characterisation due to field advances.

Evidence: Abstract p. 2

Stated Contribution Clear

Well covered

Provides updated minimum information recommendations (MISEV2023).

Evidence: p. 4–5

Study Provenance

Peer reviewed venueFunding not reportedConflict disclosure providedAffiliations listed

Authors & Affiliations

International ISEV consortium; >1000 contributors across institutions.

Funding Statement

Not reported

Conflicts of Interest

Comprehensive conflict of interest statement provided.

Peer Review

✓Journal of Extracellular Vesicles (Wiley) peer‑reviewed position paper.

Evidence: p. 1

Methodological Assessment

All design modules are marked as not applicable. Use the accordion below to review their details.

Modules without applicable checklist items (10)

These designs were fully marked as not applicable but remain available for reference.

Abstract

Extracellular vesicles (EVs), through their complex cargo, can reflect the state of their cell of origin and change the functions and phenotypes of other cells. These features indicate strong biomarker and therapeutic potential and have generated broad interest, as evidenced by the steady year‐on‐year increase in the numbers of scientific publications about EVs. Important advances have been made in EV metrology and in understanding and applying EV biology. However, hurdles remain to realising the potential of EVs in domains ranging from basic biology to clinical applications due to challenges in EV nomenclature, separation from non‐vesicular extracellular particles, characterisation and functional studies. To address the challenges and opportunities in this rapidly evolving field, the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) updates its ‘Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles’, which was first published in 2014 and then in 2018 as MISEV2014 and MISEV2018, respectively. The goal of the current document, MISEV2023, is to provide researchers with an updated snapshot of available approaches and their advantages and limitations for production, separation and characterisation of EVs from multiple sources, including cell culture, body fluids and solid tissues. In addition to presenting the latest state of the art in basic principles of EV research, this document also covers advanced techniques and approaches that are currently expanding the boundaries of the field. MISEV2023 also includes new sections on EV release and uptake and a brief discussion of in vivo approaches to study EVs. Compiling feedback from ISEV expert task forces and more than 1000 researchers, this document conveys the current state of EV research to facilitate robust scientific discoveries and move the field forward even more rapidly.

Quick Actions

Read Full Paper

Study Overview

Study Design

Guideline

Primary classification used to evaluate this research.

Population

Not applicable—ISEV consensus guideline for EV studies.

Brief summary of who or what was studied.

Reviewer Notes

ISEV position/guideline paper updating MISEV2018 with consensus-based recommendations; no empirical trial.

Publication Details

DOI

10.1002/jev2.12404

Published

February 1, 2024

Citations

2471 citations

FWCI

1196.30

External Resources

DOI Link OpenAlex

Disclaimer: This assessment is generated by AI and should not be the sole basis for clinical or research decisions. Always review the original paper and consult with domain experts.