Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research

doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.1000412

Home
/
Papers
/
Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research

Journal Article•DOI•

Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research

Carol Kilkenny, William J Browne¹, Innes C. Cuthill¹, Michael Emerson², Douglas G. Altman³ - Show less +1 more•Institutions (3)

University of Bristol¹, National Institutes of Health², University of Oxford³

29 Jun 2010-PLOS Biology (Public Library of Science)-Vol. 8, Iss: 6, pp 94-99

TL;DR: Most of the papers surveyed did not report using randomisation or blinding to reduce bias in animal selection and outcome assessment, consistent with reviews of many research areas, including clinical studies, published in recent years.

read less

Abstract: animals used (i.e., species/strain, sex, and age/weight). Most of the papers surveyed did not report using randomisation (87%) or blinding (86%) to reduce bias in animal selection and outcome assessment. Only 70% of the publications that used statistical methods fully described them and presented the results with a measure of precision or variability [5]. These findings are a cause for concern and are consistent with reviews of many research areas, including clinical studies, published in recent years [2–22].

...read moreread less

Citations

PDF

Open Access

More filters

Journal Article•DOI•

Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience

[...]

Katherine S. Button¹, John P. A. Ioannidis², Claire Mokrysz¹, Brian A. Nosek³, Jonathan Flint⁴, Emma S J Robinson¹, Marcus R. Munafò - Show less +3 more•Institutions (4)

University of Bristol¹, Stanford University², University of Virginia³, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics⁴

01 May 2013-Nature Reviews Neuroscience

TL;DR: It is shown that the average statistical power of studies in the neurosciences is very low, and the consequences include overestimates of effect size and low reproducibility of results.

...read moreread less

Abstract: A study with low statistical power has a reduced chance of detecting a true effect, but it is less well appreciated that low power also reduces the likelihood that a statistically significant result reflects a true effect. Here, we show that the average statistical power of studies in the neurosciences is very low. The consequences of this include overestimates of effect size and low reproducibility of results. There are also ethical dimensions to this problem, as unreliable research is inefficient and wasteful. Improving reproducibility in neuroscience is a key priority and requires attention to well-established but often ignored methodological principles.

...read moreread less

5,683 citations

Journal Article•DOI•

Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines

[...]

Carol Kilkenny, William J Browne¹, Innes C. Cuthill¹, Michael Emerson², Douglas G. Altman³ - Show less +1 more•Institutions (3)

University of Bristol¹, National Institutes of Health², University of Oxford³

01 Aug 2010-British Journal of Pharmacology

TL;DR: An accurate summary of the background, research objectives, including details of the species or strain of animal used, key methods, principal findings and conclusions of the study is provided.

...read moreread less

Abstract: The following guidelines are excerpted (as permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL), with the knowledge and approval of PLoS Biology and the authors) from Kilkenny et al (2010) Table

...read moreread less

3,093 citations

Cites background from "Improving Bioscience Research Repor..."

...British Journal of Pharmacology (2010) 160 1577–1579 1577 Item Recommendation (Kilkenny et al., 2010) Experimental animals 8 a. Provide details of the animals used, including species, strain, sex, developmental stage (e.g. mean or median age plus age range) and weight (e.g. mean or median weight…...
[...]
...British Journal of Pharmacology (2010) 160 1577–1579 1577 Item Recommendation (Kilkenny et al., 2010) Experimental animals 8 a. Provide details of the animals used, including species, strain, sex, developmental stage (e.g. mean or median age plus age range) and weight (e.g. mean or median weight plus weight range). b. Provide further relevant information such as the source of animals, international strain nomenclature, genetic modification status (e.g. knock-out or transgenic), genotype, health/immune status, drug or test naïve, previous procedures, etc. Housing and husbandry 9 Provide details of: a. Housing (type of facility e.g. specific pathogen free [SPF]; type of cage or housing; bedding material; number of cage companions; tank shape and material etc. for fish). b. Husbandry conditions (e.g. breeding programme, light/dark cycle, temperature, quality of water etc for fish, type of food, access to food and water, environmental enrichment). c. Welfare-related assessments and interventions that were carried out prior to, during, or after the experiment....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

Animal Research: Reporting in vivo Experiments—The ARRIVE Guidelines:

[...]

Carol Kilkenny, William J Browne, Innes C. Cuthill, Michael Emerson¹, Douglas G. Altman² - Show less +1 more•Institutions (2)

National Institutes of Health¹, University of Oxford²

05 Jan 2011-Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism

TL;DR: The following guidelines are excerpted (as permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL), with the knowledge and approval of PLoS Biology and the authors) from Kilkenny et al.

...read moreread less

1,916 citations

Journal Article•DOI•

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

[...]

Nathalie Percie du Sert, Viki Hurst, Amrita Ahluwalia¹, Sabina Alam, Marc T. Avey², Monya Baker, William J Browne³, Alejandra Clark, Innes C. Cuthill³, Ulrich Dirnagl⁴, Michael Emerson⁵, Paul Garner⁶, Stephen T. Holgate⁷, David W. Howells⁸, Natasha A. Karp⁹, Stanley E. Lazic, Katie Lidster, Catriona J. MacCallum, Malcolm R. Macleod¹⁰, Esther J. Pearl, Ole H. Petersen¹¹, Frances Rawle¹², Penny S. Reynolds¹³, Kieron Rooney¹⁴, Emily S. Sena¹⁰, Shai D. Silberberg, Thomas Steckler¹⁵, Hanno Würbel¹⁶ - Show less +24 more•Institutions (16)

Queen Mary University of London¹, Durham University², University of Bristol³, Charité⁴, National Institutes of Health⁵, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine⁶, University of Southampton⁷, University of Tasmania⁸, AstraZeneca⁹, University of Edinburgh¹⁰, Cardiff University¹¹, Medical Research Council¹², University of Florida¹³, University of Sydney¹⁴, Janssen Pharmaceutica¹⁵, University of Bern¹⁶

14 Jul 2020-Experimental Physiology

TL;DR: The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice 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.

...read moreread less

Abstract: 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.

...read moreread less

1,796 citations

Journal Article•DOI•

SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies

[...]

Carlijn R. Hooijmans¹, Maroeska M. Rovers¹, Rob B. M. de Vries¹, Marlies Leenaars¹, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga¹, Miranda W. Langendam² - Show less +2 more•Institutions (2)

Radboud University Nijmegen¹, University of Amsterdam²

26 Mar 2014-BMC Medical Research Methodology

TL;DR: Widespread adoption and implementation of this tool will facilitate and improve critical appraisal of evidence from animal studies and enhance the efficiency of translatingAnimal research into clinical practice and increase awareness of the necessity of improving the methodological quality of animal studies.

...read moreread less

Abstract: Systematic Reviews (SRs) of experimental animal studies are not yet common practice, but awareness of the merits of conducting such SRs is steadily increasing. As animal intervention studies differ from randomized clinical trials (RCT) in many aspects, the methodology for SRs of clinical trials needs to be adapted and optimized for animal intervention studies. The Cochrane Collaboration developed a Risk of Bias (RoB) tool to establish consistency and avoid discrepancies in assessing the methodological quality of RCTs. A similar initiative is warranted in the field of animal experimentation. We provide an RoB tool for animal intervention studies (SYRCLE’s RoB tool). This tool is based on the Cochrane RoB tool and has been adjusted for aspects of bias that play a specific role in animal intervention studies. To enhance transparency and applicability, we formulated signalling questions to facilitate judgment. The resulting RoB tool for animal studies contains 10 entries. These entries are related to selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other biases. Half these items are in agreement with the items in the Cochrane RoB tool. Most of the variations between the two tools are due to differences in design between RCTs and animal studies. Shortcomings in, or unfamiliarity with, specific aspects of experimental design of animal studies compared to clinical studies also play a role. SYRCLE’s RoB tool is an adapted version of the Cochrane RoB tool. Widespread adoption and implementation of this tool will facilitate and improve critical appraisal of evidence from animal studies. This may subsequently enhance the efficiency of translating animal research into clinical practice and increase awareness of the necessity of improving the methodological quality of animal studies.

...read moreread less

1,773 citations

Cites background or methods from "Improving Bioscience Research Repor..."

...We hope and expect, therefore, that use of this tool will improve the reporting quality of essential experimental details in animal studies [23,24]....
[...]
...Clear guidelines for reporting and methodological quality [25] Evolving guidelines for reporting and methodological quality [2,23,24]...
[...]

1
2
3
4
…
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200

Collapse

References

PDF

Open Access

More filters

Journal Article•DOI•

CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

[...]

Kenneth F. Schulz¹, Douglas G. Altman², David Moher³•Institutions (3)

FHI 360¹, University of Oxford², Ottawa Hospital Research Institute³

24 Mar 2010-BMJ

TL;DR: The Consort 2010 Statement as discussed by the authors has been used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials and has been updated by Schulz et al. in 2010, based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience.

...read moreread less

Abstract: The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience. To encourage dissemination of the CONSORT 2010 Statement, this article is freely accessible on bmj.com and will also be published in the Lancet, Obstetrics and Gynecology, PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Open Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, BMC Medicine, and Trials.

...read moreread less

11,165 citations

Journal Article•DOI•

CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials

[...]

Kenneth F. Schulz¹, Douglas G. Altman², David Moher³•Institutions (3)

Research Triangle Park¹, University of Oxford², Ottawa Hospital Research Institute³

24 Mar 2010-PLOS Medicine

TL;DR: The 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement is described, which updates the previous reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulated experience.

...read moreread less

Abstract: Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement, which updates the previous reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulated experience.

...read moreread less

5,090 citations

"Improving Bioscience Research Repor..." refers background or methods in this paper

...The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation.[24,25]...
[...]
...The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need.[24,25] Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials

[...]

David Moher¹, Kenneth F. Schulz², Douglas G. Altman•Institutions (2)

University of Ottawa¹, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill²

14 Apr 2001-The Lancet

TL;DR: The revised CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.

...read moreread less

4,977 citations

"Improving Bioscience Research Repor..." refers background or methods in this paper

...The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation.[24,25]...
[...]
...The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need.[24,25] Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data.

[...]

Alvis Brazma¹, Pascal Hingamp, John Quackenbush², Gavin Sherlock³, Paul T. Spellman⁴, Chris Stoeckert⁵, John Aach⁶, Wilhelm Ansorge¹, Catherine A. Ball³, Helen C. Causton⁷, Terry Gaasterland⁸, Patrick Glenisson⁹, Frank C. P. Holstege¹⁰, Irene F. Kim³, Victor Markowitz, John C. Matese³, Helen Parkinson¹, Alan J. Robinson¹, Ugis Sarkans¹, Steffen Schulze-Kremer, Jason E. Stewart, Ronald C. Taylor¹¹, Jaak Vilo¹, Martin Vingron¹² - Show less +20 more•Institutions (12)

European Bioinformatics Institute¹, TigerLogic², Stanford University³, University of California, Berkeley⁴, University of Pennsylvania⁵, Harvard University⁶, Imperial College London⁷, Rockefeller University⁸, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven⁹, Utrecht University¹⁰, University of Colorado Denver¹¹, Max Planck Society¹²

01 Dec 2001-Nature Genetics

TL;DR: The ultimate goal of this work is to establish a standard for recording and reporting microarray-based gene expression data, which will in turn facilitate the establishment of databases and public repositories and enable the development of data analysis tools.

...read moreread less

Abstract: Microarray analysis has become a widely used tool for the generation of gene expression data on a genomic scale. Although many significant results have been derived from microarray studies, one limitation has been the lack of standards for presenting and exchanging such data. Here we present a proposal, the Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment (MIAME), that describes the minimum information required to ensure that microarray data can be easily interpreted and that results derived from its analysis can be independently verified. The ultimate goal of this work is to establish a standard for recording and reporting microarray-based gene expression data, which will in turn facilitate the establishment of databases and public repositories and enable the development of data analysis tools. With respect to MIAME, we concentrate on defining the content and structure of the necessary information rather than the technical format for capturing it.

...read moreread less

4,030 citations

Journal Article•DOI•

Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines

[...]

Carol Kilkenny, William J Browne¹, Innes C. Cuthill¹, Michael Emerson², Douglas G. Altman³ - Show less +1 more•Institutions (3)

University of Bristol¹, National Institutes of Health², University of Oxford³

01 Aug 2010-British Journal of Pharmacology

TL;DR: An accurate summary of the background, research objectives, including details of the species or strain of animal used, key methods, principal findings and conclusions of the study is provided.

...read moreread less

3,093 citations

"Improving Bioscience Research Repor..." refers background in this paper

...The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously,[56-60] and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication....
[...]