Article Text

Download PDFPDF

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research
  1. Nathalie Percie du Sert1,
  2. Viki Hurst1,
  3. Amrita Ahluwalia2,3,
  4. Sabina Alam4,
  5. Marc T Avey5,
  6. Monya Baker6,
  7. William J Browne7,
  8. Alejandra Clark8,
  9. Innes C Cuthill9,
  10. Ulrich Dirnagl10,11,
  11. Michael Emerson12,
  12. Paul Garner13,
  13. Stephen T Holgate14,
  14. David W Howells15,
  15. Natasha A Karp16,
  16. Stanley E Lazic17,
  17. Katie Lidster18,
  18. Catriona J MacCallum19,
  19. Malcolm Macleod20,21,
  20. Esther J Pearl1,
  21. Ole H Petersen22,
  22. Frances Rawle23,
  23. Penny Reynolds24,
  24. Kieron Rooney25,
  25. Emily S Sena21,
  26. Shai D Silberberg26,
  27. Thomas Steckler27,
  28. Hanno Wuerbel28
  1. 1Experimental Design and Reporting, NC3Rs, London, UK
  2. 2William Harvey Research Institute, London, UK
  3. 3Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
  4. 4Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK
  5. 5ICF, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  6. 6Opinion, Nature, San Francisco, California, USA
  7. 7School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  8. 8Life Sciences, PLOS ONE, Cambridge, UK
  9. 9School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  10. 10Quest Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
  11. 11Department of Experimental Neurology, Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  12. 12National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
  13. 13Centre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health, Clinical Sciences Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
  14. 14Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK
  15. 15Tasmanian School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
  16. 16Data Sciences & Quantitative Biology, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca PLC, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK
  17. 17Prioris.ai, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  18. 18Animal Welfare, NC3Rs, London, UK
  19. 19Open Science, Hindawi Limited, London, UK
  20. 20Academic Lead for Research Improvement and Research Integrity, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  21. 21Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  22. 22Academia Europaea Knowledge Hub, Cardiff University, Cardiff, South Glamorgan, UK
  23. 23Policy, Ethics and Governance, Medical Research Council, London, UK
  24. 24Department of Anesthesiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA
  25. 25Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  26. 26Research Quality, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
  27. 27Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium
  28. 28Veterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nathalie Percie du Sert; nathalie.perciedusert{at}nc3rs.org.uk

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 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.

  • ARRIVE
  • reporting guidelines
  • animal research
  • reproducibility
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Twitter @Nathalie_PdS, @drejpearl

  • Contributors NPdS: conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, visualisation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; VH: data curation, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, writing—original draft; SEL, EJP: writing—review and editing; KL: investigation, project administration, writing—review and editing; AA, SA, MTA, MB, WJB, AC, ICC, UD, ME, PG, STH, DWH, NAK, CJMcC, MM, OHP, FR, PR, KR, ESS, SDS, TS, HW: investigation, methodology, resources, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.

  • Funding This study was funded by National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research.

  • Competing interests AA: editor in chief of the British Journal of Pharmacology. WJB, ICC and ME: authors of the original ARRIVE guidelines. WJB: serves on the Independent Statistical Standing Committee of the funder CHDI foundation. AC: Senior Editor, PLOS ONE. AC, CJMcC, MM and ESS: involved in the IICARus trial. ME, MMcL and ESS: have received funding from NC3Rs. ME: sits on the MRC ERPIC panel. STH: chair of the NC3Rs board, trusteeship of the BLF, Kennedy Trust, DSRU and CRUK, member of Governing Board, Nuffield Council of Bioethics, member Science Panel for Health (EU H2020), founder and NEB Director Synairgen, consultant Novartis, Teva and AZ, chair MRC/GSK EMINENT Collaboration. VH, KL, EJP and NPdS: NC3Rs staff, role includes promoting the ARRIVE guidelines. SEL and UD: on the advisory board of the UK Reproducibility Network, CJMcC: shareholdings in Hindawi, on the publishing board of the Royal Society, on the EU Open Science policy platform. UD, MM, NPdS, CJMcC, ESS, TS and HW: members of EQIPD. MM: member of the Animals in Science Committee, on the steering group of the UK Reproducibility Network. NPdS and TS: associate editors of BMJ Open Science. OHP: vice president of Academia Europaea, editor in chief of Function, senior executive editor of the Journal of Physiology, member of the Board of the European Commission’s SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies). FR: NC3Rs board member, shareholdings in GSK. FR and NAK: shareholdings in AstraZeneca. PR: member of the University of Florida Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, editorial board member of Shock. ESS: editor in chief of BMJ Open Science. SDS: role is to provide expertise and does not represent the opinion of the NIH. TS: shareholdings in Johnson & Johnson.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available in a public, open access repository. All data and supporting information are available at https://osf.io/unc4j/. Noteworthy changes in ARRIVE 2.0. This table recapitulates noteworthy changes in the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0, compared with the original ARRIVE guidelines published in 2010. S1_Delphi. Delphi methods and results. Methodology and results of the Delphi study that was used to prioritise the items of the guidelines into the ARRIVE Essential 10 and Recommended Set. S1_Data. Delphi data. Tabs 1, 2 and 3: panel members’ scores for each of the ARRIVE items during rounds 1, 2 and 3, along with descriptive statistics. Tab 4: qualitative feedback, collected from panel members during round 1, on the importance and the wording of each item. Tab 5: additional items suggested for consideration in ARRIVE 2.0; similar suggestions were grouped together before processing. Tab 6: justifications provided by panel members for changing an item’s score between round 1 and round 2. S2_Data. Road testing data. Tab 1: participants’ demographics and general feedback on the guidelines and the E&E preprints. Tab 2: outcome of each manuscript’s assessment and justifications provided by participants for not including information covered in the ARRIVE guidelines. S1_ Road_Testing. Road testing methods and results. Methodology used to road test the revised ARRIVE guidelines and E&E (as published in preprint) and how this information was used in the development of ARRIVE 2.0.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.