scholarly journals Quality of reporting of otorhinolaryngology articles using animal models with the ARRIVE statement

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aren Bezdjian ◽  
Sjaak F L Klis ◽  
Jeroen P M Peters ◽  
Wilko Grolman ◽  
Inge Stegeman
Keyword(s):  
Animal Models ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
In Vivo Experiments ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
In Vivo Animal Models

Research involving animal models is crucial for the advancement of science, provided that experiments are designed, performed, interpreted, and reported well. In order to investigate the quality of reporting of articles in otorhinolaryngology research using animal models, a PubMed database search was conducted to retrieve eligible articles. The checklist of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines was used to assess the quality of reporting of articles published in ear, nose and throat (ENT) and multidisciplinary journals. Two authors screened titles, abstracts, and full texts to select articles reporting otorhinolaryngology research using in vivo animal models. ENT journals ( n = 35) reported a mean of 57.1% adequately scored ARRIVE items (median: 58.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI; 53.4–60.9%]), while articles published in multidisciplinary journals ( n = 36) reported a mean of 49.1% adequately scored items (median: 50.0; 95% CI [46.2–52.0%]). Articles published in ENT journals showed better quality of reporting of animal studies based on the ARRIVE guidelines ( P < 0.05). However, adherence to the ARRIVE guidelines is generally poor in otorhinolaryngology research using in vivo animal models. The endorsement of the ARRIVE guidelines by authors, research and academic institutes, editorial offices and funding agencies is recommended for improved reporting of scientific research using animal models.

scholarly journals The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research*

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (9) ◽  
pp. 1769-1777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Percie du Sert ◽  
Viki Hurst ◽  
Amrita Ahluwalia ◽  
Sabina Alam ◽  
Marc T. Avey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Research ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Minimum Requirement ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
In Vivo Experiments ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Delphi Exercise

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.

scholarly journals The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e100115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Percie du Sert ◽  
Viki Hurst ◽  
Amrita Ahluwalia ◽  
Sabina Alam ◽  
Marc T Avey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Research ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Minimum Requirement ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
In Vivo Experiments ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Delphi Exercise

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.

Endorsement of Animal Research: Incorporation of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) Guidelines/Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) by Chinese journals: A survey of journals' instructions for authors and editors

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 479-486
Author(s):  
Ting Zhang ◽  
Jingjing Yang ◽  
Xi Bai ◽  
Hongyan Liu ◽  
Fang Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gold Standard ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Recognition Rate ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Manuscript Preparation ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
In Vivo Experiments

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.

The Quality of Reporting Raises Questions on the Experimental Validity of Animal Studies Conducted in India and Sri Lanka: Preliminary Analysis of a Systematic Survey

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-91
Author(s):  
Vijay Pal Singh ◽  
Ayushi Jain ◽  
Shubhra Gupta ◽  
Manudharshy Vijayakumar ◽  
Kunal Pratap ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Animal Experiments ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Systematic Survey ◽  
In Vivo Experiments

The quality of animal experiments in terms of appropriate reporting is a concern, particularly with regard to their validity and the recording of the measures taken to reduce various types of bias. A systematic survey of 1371 and 236 publications from India and Sri Lanka, respectively, which were published between 1905 and 2017 and indexed in NCBI-PubMed, Cinhal, MEDLINE and Scopus, was carried out. The level of detail in the descriptions of animals used and the measures taken to reduce bias were analysed in each article. Selected parameters from the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, such as age, weight, sex, sample size calculation, blinding and randomisation were considered. The findings revealed poor reporting standards in animal experiments carried out in India and Sri Lanka, confirming the limited impact of the ARRIVE guidelines. These findings emphasise the urgent need for improvements in the peer review process, both prior to a study being set up and in the post-study reporting phase, and for more stringent adherence to the ARRIVE guidelines in the reporting of animal experiments.

scholarly journals Principles of the 3Rs and ARRIVE Guidelines in Animal Research

2017 ◽  
pp. 156-63
Author(s):  
Salva Reverentia Yurista ◽  
Rafi Andika Ferdian ◽  
Djanggan Sargowo
Keyword(s):  
Animal Studies ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Moral Obligations ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
In Vivo Experiments ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Animal Use ◽  
The Three Rs

The use of animals in research has concerned the general public and thoughtful researchers for a long time. For improved animal welfare and increased research quality, researchers have moral obligations to include the 3Rs. The Three Rs are basic principles of humane experimental technique that were first set out by Russell and Burch in 1959. They are now widely accepted within the international scientific community and in associated legislation and guidelines, as a means of avoiding or reducing animal use and suffering and helping to improve the quality of science. When reporting animal studies, it is recommended that manuscripts conform to the principals of the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, incorporated the 3Rs principal.

scholarly journals Revision of the ARRIVE guidelines: rationale and scope

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. e000002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Percie du Sert ◽  
Viki Hurst ◽  
Amrita Ahluwalia ◽  
Sabina Alam ◽  
Douglas G Altman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
System Development ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
In Vivo Experiments ◽  
Expert Working Group ◽  
Tiered System ◽  
Initial Work ◽  
The Impact

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.

Quality of design and reporting of animal research in peritoneal dialysis: A scoping review

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 394-404
Author(s):  
Janusz Witowski ◽  
Dorota Sikorska ◽  
András Rudolf ◽  
Izabela Miechowicz ◽  
Julian Kamhieh-Milz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Size Estimation ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
The Impact

The concerns about reproducibility and validity of animal studies are partly related to poor experimental design and reporting. Here, we undertook a scoping review of the literature to determine the extent and quality of reporting of animal studies on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Online databases were searched to identify 567 relevant original articles published between 1979 and 2018. These were analyzed with respect to bibliographic parameters and general aspects of animal experimentation. A subgroup of 120 studies was analyzed in detail in terms of the impact on the reporting quality of the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines for animal studies. The number of animal studies on PD increased continuously over the years with a thematic shift toward long-term preservation of the peritoneum as a dialyzing organ. There were significant deficiencies in research design with the lack of sample size estimation, randomization, and blinding being the commonest shortcomings. The description of animal numbers, housing conditions, use of medication, and statistical analysis was incomplete. The introduction in 2010 of the ARRIVE guidelines produced very little improvement in the completeness of reporting regardless of journal impact factor. The animal studies on PD suffer from deficits in experimental protocols and transparent reporting. These drawbacks need to be corrected to ensure high-quality and much-needed animal research in PD.

scholarly journals In vivo animal models in periodontal research - focus on rodents

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-175
Author(s):  
E. I. Firkova
Keyword(s):  
Animal Models ◽  
Cellular Level ◽  
In Vitro Tests ◽  
Large Species ◽  
In Vivo Experiments ◽  
Data Translation ◽  
In Vivo Animal Models ◽  
Periodontal Research

Periodontal research has developed very fast in the last two decades. Although at this stage of science a lot of genetic and molecular-based trials are performed in order to elucidate the complex etiology, pathophysiology, biofilm-host interactions and responses on genetic and cellular level, in vivo animal models are still used. In many ways, in vivo experiments are superior to in vitro tests when the dynamics of the immune-inflammatory nature of the periodontal disease and peri-implantitis and the specific healing of soft and hard tissues is concerned. Screening the efficacy, mechanisms of action and application of different biomaterials requires in vivo experiments, be-fore the data translation to clinical settings. A number of small animals like rodents and large species like dogs and nonhuman primates are involved in periodontal research. As live creatures are used, the design of the studies must be well defined, with regard to the type of the animals, most suitable for the tested hypothesis, observation period, sample size, study power, critical size defects, and specific testing sites.

scholarly journals The reporting quality of the interventional animal experiments in Chinese journals based on the evaluated results of the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bing Zhao ◽  
Yanbiao Jiang ◽  
Ting Zhang ◽  
Zhizhong Shang ◽  
Weiyi Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Compliance Rate ◽  
Animal Experiments ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Experimental Animals ◽  
Chinese Science ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
In Vivo Experiments ◽  
Sufficient Detail

Abstract Objective To retrospectively evaluate the reporting quality of animal experiments published in Chinese journals adhering to the Animals Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Methods The databases CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM were searched from inception until July 2018. Two appropriately-trained. reviewers screened and extracted articles independently. The ARRIVE guidelines were used to assess the quality of the published reports of animal experiments. The compliance rate of every item was analyzed relative to the different dates of publication. Results A total of 4342 studies were finally included, of which 73.03% had been cited ≤ 5 times. Only 29.04% (1261/4342) were published in journals listed in the Chinese Science Citation Database. The results indicate that the compliance rate of around half of the sub-items (51.3%, 20/39) was less than 50% and 65.0% (13/20) was less than 10%. Conclusions The reporting quality of animal experiments in Chinese journals is generally at a low to moderate level. Due to the publication of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010, the compliance rate of the majority of items in the ARRIVE guidelines has improved to some extent. However, less attention has been paid to the ethics and welfare of experimental animals, and a number of specific items in the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections continue to not be reported in sufficient detail. Therefore, it is necessary to popularize the ARRIVE guidelines, advocate researchers to adhere to them in the future, and in particular promote the use of the guidelines in specialized journals, in order that the design, implementation, and reporting of animal experiments is promoted, to ultimately improve their quality.

scholarly journals Quality of interventional animal experiments in Chinese journals: compliance with ARRIVE guidelines

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bing Zhao ◽  
Yanbiao Jiang ◽  
Ting Zhang ◽  
Zhizhong Shang ◽  
Weiyi Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Compliance Rate ◽  
Animal Experiments ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
In Vivo Experiments ◽  
Sufficient Detail ◽  
High Level

Abstract Background In view of the inadequacy and incompleteness of currently-reported animal experiments and their overall poor quality, we retrospectively evaluated the reporting quality of animal experiments published in Chinese journals adhering to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Results The databases CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM were searched from inception until July 2018. Two appropriately-trained reviewers screened and extracted articles independently. The ARRIVE guidelines were used to assess the quality of the published reports of animal experiments. The compliance rate of every item was analyzed relative to their date of publication. A total of 4342 studies were included, of which 73.0% had been cited ≤5 times. Only 29.0% (1261/4342) were published in journals listed in the Chinese Science Citation Database. The results indicate that the compliance rate of approximately half of the sub-items (51.3%, 20/39) was less than 50%, of which 65.0% (13/20) was even less than 10%. Conclusions The reporting quality of animal experiments in Chinese journals is not at a high level. Following publication of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010, the compliance rate of the majority of its requirements has improved to some extent. However, less attention has been paid to the ethics and welfare of experimental animals, and a number of specific items in the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections continue to not be reported in sufficient detail. Therefore, it is necessary to popularize the ARRIVE guidelines, advocate researchers to adhere to them in the future, and in particular promote the use of the guidelines in specialized journals in order that the design, implementation, and reporting of animal experiments is promoted, to ultimately improve their quality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document