Revision of the ARRIVE guidelines: rationale and scope

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.

[1]  F. Collins,et al.  Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility , 2014, Nature.

[2]  D. Moher,et al.  Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[3]  Marcia McNutt,et al.  Journals unite for reproducibility , 2014, Science.

[4]  Paul A Insel,et al.  Experimental design and analysis and their reporting: new guidance for publication in BJP , 2015, British journal of pharmacology.

[5]  David Moher,et al.  The Devil Is in the Details: Incomplete Reporting in Preclinical Animal Research , 2016, PloS one.

[6]  S. Lazic,et al.  A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research , 2012, Nature.

[7]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments , 2010 .

[8]  Malcolm R. Macleod,et al.  No publication without confirmation , 2017, Nature.

[9]  D. Moher,et al.  The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  T. Houle,et al.  Reporting of Preclinical Research in Anesthesiology: Transparency and Enforcement. , 2016, Anesthesiology.

[11]  F. D. Kahn,et al.  A star is born , 1980, Nature.

[12]  David Moher,et al.  Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research , 2014, The Lancet.

[13]  D. Cressey UK funders demand strong statistics for animal studies , 2015, Nature.

[14]  Katie Lidster,et al.  Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies , 2014, PLoS biology.

[15]  R. Stevens,et al.  Bias in the reporting of sex and age in biomedical research on mouse models , 2016, eLife.

[16]  H. Würbel,et al.  The Researchers’ View of Scientific Rigor—Survey on the Conduct and Reporting of In Vivo Research , 2016, PloS one.

[17]  Ulrich Dirnagl,et al.  Distinguishing between Exploratory and Confirmatory Preclinical Research Will Improve Translation , 2014, PLoS biology.

[18]  Emilie Marcus A STAR Is Born , 2016, Cell.

[19]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Reporting : The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research , 2010 .

[20]  S. Ananiadou,et al.  Risk of bias reporting in the recent animal focal cerebral ischaemia literature , 2017, Clinical science.

[21]  M. Curtis,et al.  BJP is changing its requirements for scientific papers to increase transparency , 2015 .