Transparency in the reporting of in vivo pre-clinical pain research: The relevance and implications of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 58-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew S.C. Rice ◽  
Rosemary Morland ◽  
Wenlong Huang ◽  
Gillian L. Currie ◽  
Emily S. Sena ◽  
...  

AbstractClear reporting of research is crucial to the scientific process. Poorly designed and reported studies are damaging not only to the efforts of individual researchers, but also to science as a whole. Standardised reporting methods, such as those already established for reporting randomised clinical trials, have led to improved study design and facilitated the processes of clinical systematic review and meta-analysis.Such standards were lacking in the pre-clinical field until the development of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. These were prompted following a survey which highlighted a widespread lack of robust and consistent reporting of pre-clinical in vivo research, with reports frequently omitting basic information required for study replication and quality assessment.The resulting twenty item checklist in ARRIVE covers all aspects of experimental design with particular emphasis on bias reduction and methodological transparency. Influential publishers and research funders have already adopted ARRIVE. Further dissemination and acknowledgement of the importance of these guidelines is vital to their widespread implementation.Conclusions and implicationsWide implementation of the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting of in vivo preclinical research, especially pain research, are essential for a much needed increased transparency and quality in publishing such research. ARRIVE will also positively influence improvements in experimental design and quality, assist the conduct of accurate replication studies of important new findings and facilitate meta-analyses of preclinical research.

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. e000002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Percie du Sert ◽  
Viki Hurst ◽  
Amrita Ahluwalia ◽  
Sabina Alam ◽  
Douglas G Altman ◽  
...  

In 2010, the NC3Rs published the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to improve the reporting of animal research. Despite considerable levels of support from the scientific community, the impact on the quality of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. This position paper highlights the strategy of an expert working group established to revise the guidelines and facilitate their uptake. The group’s initial work will focus on three main areas: prioritisation of the ARRIVE items into a tiered system, development of an explanation and elaboration document, and revision of specific items.


2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (9) ◽  
pp. 1769-1777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Percie du Sert ◽  
Viki Hurst ◽  
Amrita Ahluwalia ◽  
Sabina Alam ◽  
Marc T. Avey ◽  
...  

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the “ARRIVE Essential 10,” which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the “Recommended Set,” which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.


2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 991-993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Kilkenny ◽  
William Browne ◽  
Innes C Cuthill ◽  
Michael Emerson ◽  
Douglas G Altman

2010 ◽  
Vol 160 (7) ◽  
pp. 1577-1579 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Kilkenny ◽  
William Browne ◽  
Innes C Cuthill ◽  
Michael Emerson ◽  
Douglas G Altman

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e100115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Percie du Sert ◽  
Viki Hurst ◽  
Amrita Ahluwalia ◽  
Sabina Alam ◽  
Marc T Avey ◽  
...  

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into two sets, the ‘ARRIVE Essential 10’, which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the ‘Recommended Set’, which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.


Author(s):  
Jitendra H. Deshmukh ◽  
Kiran R. Deshmukh ◽  
Manthan N. Mehta

Background: This study compares the adherence to Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines in an Indian (IJP: Indian Journal of Pharmacology) and International journal (JPET: Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics).Methods: All original animal studies published in IJP and JPET between January 2014 and September 2015 were downloaded manually and 100 articles were randomly chosen from each journal and analyzed using the ARRIVE guidelines checklist and checked for adherence.Results: Most articles indicated the ethical statement (IJP- 96%, JPET- 98%). Steps taken to minimize effects of subjective bias in the study design were not mentioned in more than half the articles (IJP-50%, JPET-37%). Details of experimental animals were not adequately reported (IJP- 79%, JPET-68%). Details of animal housing (IJP-20%, JPET-39%) and husbandry (IJP-59%, JPET-51%) were poorly reported. Explanation of sample size calculation was mentioned in 2% and 1% articles in IJP and JPET. Statistical methods were well explained, yet the methods used to assess whether the data met the assumptions of the statistical approach was poorly reported.Conclusions: The present study demonstrates relatively suboptimal reporting standards in animal studies published in IJP and JPET. Adherence to ARRIVE guidelines can be improved.


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 479-486
Author(s):  
Ting Zhang ◽  
Jingjing Yang ◽  
Xi Bai ◽  
Hongyan Liu ◽  
Fang Cheng ◽  
...  

The objective was to determine the rate at which Chinese journals include Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) Guidelines/Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) in their instructions for authors, and the awareness and recognition of editors. The survey was performed on Chinese journals. The most recent versions each journal's instructions for authors were downloaded, and the information related to the ARRIVE/GSPC was collected. A self-developed questionnaire was used to conduct the survey among the editors. Questionnaires were sent to 238 qualified journals and 198 of them returned them, achieving an 83.2% response rate. The results showed that none of the journals included the ARRIVE/GSPC in their instructions for authors, and the awareness rate was only 13.1% (26/198). The participants who were unaware of the ARRIVE/GSPC were less likely than those who were aware of them to believe it was necessary to include the ARRIVE/GSPC in the instructions for authors (23.3% vs. 61.5%), and less likely to request authors in their manuscript preparation (28.5% vs. 88.5%), editors in the editing and processing (28.5% vs. 84.6%) and reviewers in peer review stage (28.5% vs. 92.3%) to follow the ARRIVE/GSPC. Currently no Chinese journals include the ARRIVE/GSPC in their instructions for authors. The recognition rate of the ARRIVE/GSPC was low among the editors. So, we suggest that Chinese journals should promote inclusion of the ARRIVE/GSPC in journals' instructions for authors. It is also important to educate researchers and editors alike to increase their understanding of the ARRIVE/GSPC, so that the quality of reporting of animal study can be improved.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 561-563 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Kilkenny ◽  
William Browne ◽  
Innes C Cuthill ◽  
Michael Emerson ◽  
Douglas G Altman

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document