The ARRIVE guidelines 2019: updated guidelines for reporting animal research
N. Percie du Sert, V. Hurst, A. Ahluwalia, S. Alam, M. T. Avey, M. Baker, W. J. Browne, A. Clark, I. C. Cuthill, U. Dirnagl, M. Emerson, P. Garner, S. T. Holgate, D. W. Howells, N. A. Karp, K. Lidster, C. J. MacCallum, M. Macleod, O. Petersen, F. Rawle, P. Reynolds, K. Rooney, E. S. Sena, S. D. Silberberg, T. Steckler, H. Würbel
Abstract
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.\n\nHere 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.
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Reporting animal research: Explanation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2019
N. Percie du Sert, A. Ahluwalia, … H. Würbel·bioRxiv·Jul 15, 2019
- A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus)
K. Hair, M. R. Macleod, … The IICARus Collaboration·bioRxiv·Aug 28, 2018
- Findings of a retrospective, controlled cohort study of the impact of a change in Nature journals' editorial policy for life sciences research on the completeness of reporting study design and execution
Malcolm Robert Macleod, The NPQIP Collaborative group·bioRxiv·Sep 12, 2017
- Rigor and Transparency Index, a new metric of quality for assessing biological and medical science methods.
J. Menke, M. Roelandse, … A. E. Bandrowski·bioRxiv·Jan 15, 2020
- A survey to assess animal methods bias in scientific publishing
C. E. Krebs, A. Lam, … K. Sullivan·bioRxiv·Mar 24, 2022
- Reproducibility2020: Progress and Priorities
L. Freedman, G. Venugopalan, R. Wisman·bioRxiv·Feb 16, 2017