The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

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 (E&E) 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.

[1]  D. Redelmeier,et al.  Translation of research evidence from animals to humans. , 2006, JAMA.

[2]  Monya Baker,et al.  Reporting animal research: Explanation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2019 , 2019, bioRxiv.

[3]  Steve Alexander,et al.  Experimental design and analysis and their reporting II: updated and simplified guidance for authors and peer reviewers , 2018, British journal of pharmacology.

[4]  Nicole A. Vasilevsky,et al.  Reproducible and reusable research: are journal data sharing policies meeting the mark? , 2017, PeerJ.

[5]  C. Begley,et al.  Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research , 2012, Nature.

[6]  Gillian L. Currie,et al.  How our approaches to assessing benefits and harms can be improved , 2019, Animal Welfare.

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

[8]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  The preregistration revolution , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  C Weijer,et al.  A comparison of journal instructions regarding institutional review board approval and conflict-of-interest disclosure between 1995 and 2005 , 2008, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[10]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research † , 2012, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[11]  Robert Moreland,et al.  Methodological Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Studies: Targets to Enhance Reproducibility and Promote Research Translation , 2017 .

[12]  Sean A Rands,et al.  Inclusion of policies on ethical standards in animal experiments in biomedical science journals. , 2011, Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS.

[13]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments: The ARRIVE Guidelines , 2010, British journal of pharmacology.

[14]  Z. Boka Enhancing reproducibility , 2013, Nature Methods.

[15]  C. Kilkenny,et al.  Guidelines for reporting experiments involving animals: the ARRIVE guidelines , 2010, British journal of pharmacology.

[16]  L. Freedman,et al.  Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities , 2017, bioRxiv.

[17]  Jessica S. Ancker,et al.  A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines , 2007, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[18]  M. Lauer,et al.  Reproducibility 2020 : Progress and priorities , 2017 .

[19]  Ulrich Dirnagl,et al.  The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research* , 2020, BMC Veterinary Research.

[20]  Esther J Pearl,et al.  Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 , 2020, PLoS biology.

[21]  J. E. Kranz,et al.  Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS , 2008, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis : official publication of the World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Motor Neuron Diseases.

[22]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  What does research reproducibility mean? , 2016, Science Translational Medicine.

[23]  Ulrich Dirnagl,et al.  Reprint: Good Laboratory Practice: Preventing Introduction of Bias at the Bench , 2009, Stroke.

[24]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Reproducibility in Science: Improving the Standard for Basic and Preclinical Research , 2015, Circulation research.

[25]  F. Fidler,et al.  Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution , 2018, PloS one.

[26]  Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines , 2010, Experimental physiology.

[27]  Jing Liao,et al.  Did a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences research improve reporting? , 2019, BMJ Open Science.

[28]  D G Altman,et al.  Improving bioscience research reporting: ARRIVE-ing at a solution , 2010, Laboratory animals.

[29]  Michael L. Newman,et al.  Journal Editorial Policies, Animal Welfare, and the 3Rs , 2009, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

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

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

[32]  G. Cumming,et al.  The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices , 2017, PloS one.

[33]  David Mellor,et al.  Supplemental materials for preprint: Towards minimum reporting standards for life scientists , 2019 .

[34]  Eric M Prager,et al.  Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing , 2018, Brain and behavior.

[35]  Stanley E. Lazic,et al.  Experimental Design for Laboratory Biologists: Maximising Information and Improving Reproducibility. By Stanley E. Lazic. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. $175.00 (hardcover); $64.99 (paper). xv + 412 p.; ill.; index. ISBN: 978-1-107-07429-3 (hc); 978-1-107-42488-3 (pb); 978-1-316 , 2017, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[36]  Douglas Heaven,et al.  AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind , 2018, Nature.

[37]  James A. Anderson,et al.  Should preclinical studies be registered? , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[38]  I McCance,et al.  Assessment of statistical procedures used in papers in the Australian Veterinary Journal. , 1995, Australian veterinary journal.

[39]  Gillian L. Currie,et al.  Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement , 2015, PLoS biology.

[40]  D. Howells,et al.  Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies? , 2010, PLoS medicine.

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

[42]  Holly Else,et al.  Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions , 2018, Nature.

[43]  Erik Schultes,et al.  The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship , 2016, Scientific Data.

[44]  Susann Fiedler,et al.  Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency , 2016, PLoS biology.

[45]  Jing Liao,et al.  A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus) , 2019, Research Integrity and Peer Review.

[46]  Brian Lings,et al.  The Experimental Design Assistant , 2017, Nature Methods.

[47]  Nader Shaikh,et al.  A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: A systematic review , 2017, PloS one.

[48]  Simon T. Bate,et al.  The Design and Statistical Analysis of Animal Experiments , 2014 .

[49]  Guy Beauchamp,et al.  ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesia , 2018, PloS one.

[50]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals , 2009, PloS one.

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

[52]  J. A. Pruszynski,et al.  Registered reports at the European Journal of Neuroscience: consolidating and extending peer‐reviewed study pre‐registration , 2017, The European journal of neuroscience.

[53]  Andrew S.C. Rice,et al.  Animal models and the prediction of efficacy in clinical trials of analgesic drugs: A critical appraisal and call for uniform reporting standards , 2008, PAIN.

[54]  Martin C Michel,et al.  New Author Guidelines for Displaying Data and Reporting Data Analysis and Statistical Methods in Experimental Biology , 2019, Drug Metabolism and Disposition.

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