The ARRIVE guidelines 2019: updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Reproducible 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.

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

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

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

[4]  Robert Moreland,et al.  Methodological Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Studies , 2017, Circulation research.

[5]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Animal Research: Reporting in vivo Experiments—The ARRIVE Guidelines , 2011, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

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

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

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

[9]  O. Sibony,et al.  Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review , 2011, PloS one.

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

[11]  Eric M Prager,et al.  Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing , 2018, Journal of neuroscience research.

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

[13]  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.

[14]  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.

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

[16]  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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[23]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. , 2012, Veterinary clinical pathology.

[24]  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.

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

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

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

[28]  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.

[29]  M. Baker 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility , 2016, Nature.

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

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

[32]  Ulrich Dirnagl,et al.  Revision of the ARRIVE guidelines: rationale and scope , 2018, BMJ Open Science.

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

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

[35]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  False-Positive Psychology , 2011, Psychological science.

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

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

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

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

[40]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological Diseases , 2013, PLoS biology.

[41]  I. Zucker,et al.  Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research , 2011, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

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

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

[44]  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.