text: In 2009, Stephen Bustin led an international group of scientists including Mikael Kubista to put together a set of guidelines on how to perform qPCR and what forms of data should be collected and published in the process. This also allowed editors and reviewers of scientific journals to employ the guidelines when looking over a submitted paper that included qPCR data. Thus, the guidelines were set up as a sort of checklist for each step of the procedure with certain items being marked as essential (E) when submitting data for publication and others marked as just desirable (D).
  An additional version of the guidelines was published in September 2010 for use with fluorescence-based quantitative real-time PCR. It also acted as a précis for the broader form of the guidelines. Other researchers have been creating further versions for specific forms of qPCR that may require a supplementary or different set of items to check, including single-cell qPCR and digital PCR (dPCR). Appropriate adherence to the existing MIQE guidelines has also been overviewed in other scientific areas, including photobiomodulation and clinical biomarkers.
  It was noted by Bustin in 2014 (and again by him in 2017) that there was some amount of uptake and usage of the MIQE guidelines within the scientific community, but there were still far too many published papers with qPCR experiments that lacked even the most basic of data presentation and proper confirmation of effectiveness for said data. These studies retained major reproducibility issues, where the conclusions of their evidence could not be replicated by other researchers, throwing the initial results into doubt. All of this was despite many papers directly citing Bustin's original MIQE publication, but not following through on the guideline checklist of material in their own experiments. However, some researchers have pointed out at least some success, with a number of papers being rejected by academic journals for publication due to failing to pass MIQE checklists. Other studies have been retracted after the fact once their lack of proper data to pass the MIQE guidelines was noted and publicly pointed out to the journal editors.