scholarly journals JBJS Will Require Adherence to ARRIVE Guidelines for Animal Research to Reduce Bias and Improve Quality of Reporting

2019 ◽  
Vol 101 (21) ◽  
pp. 1891-1893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas W. Bauer ◽  
Joan E. Bechtold ◽  
Marc F. Swiontkowski
Keyword(s):  
Animal Research ◽  
Improve Quality ◽  
Quality Of Reporting

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.

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 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.

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.

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 Letter to the editor - round table unites to tackle culture change in an effort to improve animal research reporting

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola J. Osborne ◽  
Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga ◽  
Amrita Ahluwahlia ◽  
Sabina Alam ◽  
Matthew Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Change ◽  
Culture Change ◽  
Laboratory Animal ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Round Table ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Round Table Discussion ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Research Reporting

Abstract A round table discussion was held during the LAVA-ESLAV-ECLAM conference on Reproducibility of Animal Studies on the 25th of September 2017 in Edinburgh. The aim of the round table was to discuss how to enhance the rate at which the quality of reporting animal research can be improved. This signed statement acknowledges the efforts that participant organizations have made towards improving the reporting of animal studies and confirms an ongoing commitment to drive further improvements, calling upon both academics and laboratory animal veterinarians to help make this cultural change.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document