scholarly journals The ARRIVE guidelines 2019: updated guidelines for reporting animal research

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Percie du Sert ◽  
Viki Hurst ◽  
Amrita Ahluwalia ◽  
Sabina Alam ◽  
Marc T. Avey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Research ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Minimum Requirement ◽  
Stepwise Approach ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Delphi Exercise

AbstractReproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines 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 2019. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise the items and split the guidelines into two sets, the ARRIVE Essential 10, which constitute 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 to verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document that 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

scholarly journals STROBE-MR: Guidelines for strengthening the reporting of Mendelian randomization studies

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Davey Smith ◽  
Neil M Davies ◽  
Niki Dimou ◽  
Matthias Egger ◽  
Valentina Gallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Mendelian Randomization ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Mr Studies ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Mr Guidance ◽  
Quality And Reliability

While the number of studies using Mendelian randomization (MR) methods has grown exponentially in the last decade, the quality of reporting of these studies often has been poor. Similar to other reporting guidelines such as CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for randomised trials and STROBE (STrenghtening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) for observational studies in epidemiology, the STROBE-MR working group aims to provide guidance to authors on how to improve reporting of MR studies and help readers, reviewers, and journal editors to evaluate the quality of the presented evidence. Empirical evidence indicates that many reports of MR studies do not clearly state or examine the various assumptions of MR methods and report insufficient details on the data sources, which makes it hard to evaluate the quality and reliability of the results. The STROBE-MR guidance covers both one sample and two sample MR studies. At present, the draft checklist consists of 20 items, organized into the title and abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. As these guidelines aim to reach the entire MR community, we would like to give everyone the opportunity to contribute their comments. The following draft of the STROBE-MR checklist is open for public discussion and all feedback will be taken into account during its next revision. For feedback, please use the comment section below this post on PeerJ Preprints. We hope the final guidelines will serve the entire community and contribute to improving the reporting of MR studies in the future.

scholarly journals Revised Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (Stricta): Extending the Consort Statement

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh MacPherson ◽  
Douglas G Altman ◽  
Richard Hammerschlag ◽  
Youping Li ◽  
Taixiang Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Consort Statement ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
The Consort Statement

The STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) were published in five journals in 2001 and 2002. These guidelines, in the form of a checklist and explanations for use by authors and journal editors, were designed to improve reporting of acupuncture trials, particularly the interventions, thereby facilitating their interpretation and replication. Subsequent reviews of the application and impact of STRICTA have highlighted the value of STRICTA as well as scope for improvements and revision. To manage the revision process a collaboration between the STRICTA Group, the CONSORT Group and the Chinese Cochrane Centre was developed in 2008. An expert panel with 47 participants was convened that provided electronic feedback on a revised draft of the checklist. At a subsequent face-to-face meeting in Freiburg, a group of 21 participants further revised the STRICTA checklist and planned dissemination. The new STRICTA checklist, which is an official extension of CONSORT, includes 6 items and 17 subitems. These set out reporting guidelines for the acupuncture rationale, the details of needling, the treatment regimen, other components of treatment, the practitioner background and the control or comparator interventions. In addition, and as part of this revision process, the explanations for each item have been elaborated, and examples of good reporting for each item are provided. In addition, the word ‘controlled’ in STRICTA is replaced by ‘clinical’, to indicate that STRICTA is applicable to a broad range of clinical evaluation designs, including uncontrolled outcome studies and case reports. It is intended that the revised STRICTA checklist, in conjunction with both the main CONSORT statement and extension for non-pharmacological treatment, will raise the quality of reporting of clinical trials of acupuncture.

Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery

2011 ◽  
Vol 114 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin N. Kiehna ◽  
Robert M. Starke ◽  
Nader Pouratian ◽  
Aaron S. Dumont
Keyword(s):  
New England ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Jadad Score ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Neurosurgical Patients

Object The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) criteria were published in 1996 to standardize the reporting and improve the quality of clinical trials. Despite having been endorsed by major medical journals and shown to improve the quality of reported trials, neurosurgical journals have yet to formally adopt these reporting criteria. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality and reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in neurosurgery and the factors that may affect the quality of reported trials. Methods The authors evaluated all neurosurgical RCTs published in 2006 and 2007 in the principal neurosurgical journals (Journal of Neurosurgery; Neurosurgery; Surgical Neurology; Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry; and Acta Neurochirurgica) and in 3 leading general medical journals (Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine). Randomized controlled trials that addressed operative decision making or the treatment of neurosurgical patients were included in this analysis. The RCT quality was evaluated using the Jadad score and the CONSORT checklist. Results In 2006 and 2007, 27 RCTs relevant to intracranial neurosurgery were reported. Of these trials, only 59% had a Jadad score ≥ 3. The 3 major medical journals all endorsed the CONSORT guidelines, while none of the neurosurgical journals have adopted these guidelines. Randomized controlled trials published in the 3 major medical journals had a significantly higher mean CONSORT score (mean 41, range 39–44) compared with those published in neurosurgical journals (mean 26.4, range 17–38; p < 0.0001). Jadad scores were also significantly higher for the major medical journals (mean 3.42, range 2–5) than neurosurgical journals (mean 2.45, range 1–5; p = 0.05). Conclusions Despite the growing volume of RCTs in neurosurgery, the quality of reporting of these trials remains suboptimal, especially in the neurosurgical journals. Improved awareness of the CONSORT guidelines by journal editors, reviewers, and authors of these papers could improve the methodology and reporting of RCTs in neurosurgery.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document