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.

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):  
Bin Ma ◽  
Bing Zhao ◽  
Yanbiao Jiang ◽  
Ting Zhang ◽  
Zhizhong Shang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Experiment ◽  
Compliance Rate ◽  
Animal Experiments ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Moderate Level ◽  
Chinese Science ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
In Vivo Experiments

Abstract Objective To evaluate retrospectively the reporting quality of animal experiments published in Chinese journals adhering to the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Methods We searched databases including CNKI, WanFang, VIP and CBM by July, 2018. Two well-trained reviewers screened and extracted articles independently. The ARRIVE guidelines were used to assess the quality of animal experiment reports. The compliance rate of every item was analyzed according to different published time.Results 4342 studies were included finally, of which 73.03% had been cited ≤ 5 times, only 29.04% (1261/4342) were published in journals of Chinese Science Citation Database. The assessment results showed that the compliance rate of more than half of sub-items (51.28%, 20/39) was less than 50% and 65.00% (13/20) of sub-items was less than 10%.Conclusion The reporting quality of animal experiments in Chinese journals is generally lower than moderate level. Along with the publication of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010, the compliance rate of most items in the ARRIVE guidelines has been improved to some extent. However, some specific items of methods, results and discussion were not still reported sufficiently and integrally. Therefore, it is necessary to popularize the ARRIVE guidelines, advocate researchers to adhere to the ARRIVE guidelines in the future and especially to promote the use of the ARRIVE guidelines in specialized journals, so as to promote the design, implementation and reporting of animal experiments, and ultimately improve their quality.

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 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 Effectiveness of Antibacterial Surfaces in Osseointegration of Titanium Dental Implants: A Systematic Review

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 360
Author(s):  
Nansi López-Valverde ◽  
Bruno Macedo-de Sousa ◽  
Antonio López-Valverde ◽  
Juan Manuel Ramírez
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Experimental Models ◽  
In Vivo Studies ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
In Vivo Experiments ◽  
Antibacterial Surfaces ◽  
Titanium Dental Implants

Titanium (Ti) dental implant failure as a result of infection has been established at 40%, being regarded as one of the most habitual and untreatable problems. Current research is focused on the design of new surfaces that can generate long-lasting, infection-free osseointegration. The purpose of our study was to assess studies on Ti implants coated with different antibacterial surfaces, assessing their osseointegration. The PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were electronically searched for in vivo studies up to December 2020, selecting six studies that met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the selected studies was assessed using the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) criteria and Systematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation’s (SYRCLE’s) risk of bias tool. Although all the included studies, proved greater osseointegration capacity of the different antibacterial surfaces studied, the methodological quality and experimental models used in some of them make it difficult to draw predictable conclusions. Because of the foregoing, we recommend caution when interpreting the results obtained.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document