Scinovex
article Open AccessTop 1% cited

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

British Journal of Pharmacology · 2020 · Vol. 177(16) · pp. 3617–3624
Nathalie Percie du SertViki HurstAmrita AhluwaliaSabina AlamMarc T. AveyMonya BakerWilliam J. BrowneAlejandra ClarkInnes C. CuthillUlrich DirnaglMichael EmersonPaul GarnerStephen T. HolgateDavid W. HowellsNatasha A. KarpStanley E. LazicKatie LidsterCatriona MacCallumMalcolm MacleodEsther J. PearlOle H. PetersenFrances RawlePenny S. ReynoldsKieron RooneyEmily S. SenaShai D. SilberbergThomas StecklerHanno Würbel

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 (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.

Animal testing and alternativesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsEthics in Clinical ResearchRigourChecklistContext (archaeology)Transparency (behavior)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Delphi methodDelphiQuality (philosophy)Process (computing)

MeSH terms

AnimalsResearch DesignReproducibility of ResultsAnimal ExperimentationChecklistResearch Report

Funding

  • AstraZeneca
  • CHDI Foundation
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
  • University of Florida
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Royal Society
  • European Commission
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
  • Medical Research Council
Citations
930
FWCI
75.10
field-weighted impact
References
60
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
Cited by
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
British Journal of Pharmacology · 2020 · 930 citations
References
Guidelines for reporting experiments involving animals: the ARRIVE guidelines
British Journal of Pharmacology · 2010 · 1,570 citations
Animal Research: Reporting <i>in vivo</i> Experiments—The ARRIVE Guidelines
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism · 2011 · 2,017 citations
Can Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?
PLoS Medicine · 2010 · 1,313 citations
Reproducibility in Science
Circulation Research · 2014 · 1,035 citations
What does research reproducibility mean?
Science Translational Medicine · 2016 · 1,283 citations
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.