Cited by 42Animal testing and alternativesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Transparency in the reporting of in vivo pre-clinical pain research: The relevance and implications of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines

Rice, Andrew S.C., Morland, Rosemary, Huang, Wenlong, Currie, Gillian L., Sena, Emily S., Macleod, Malcolm R.·2013·Scandinavian Journal of Pain

Abstract

Clear reporting of research is crucial to the scientific process. Poorly designed and reported studies are damaging not only to the efforts of individual researchers, but also to science as a whole. Standardised reporting methods, such as those already established for reporting randomised clinical trials, have led to improved study design and facilitated the processes of clinical systematic review and meta-analysis. Such standards were lacking in the pre-clinical field until the development of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. These were prompted following a survey which highlighted a widespread lack of robust and consistent reporting of pre-clinical in vivo research, with reports frequently omitting basic information required for study replication and quality assessment. The resulting twenty item checklist in ARRIVE covers all aspects of experimental design with particular emphasis on bias reduction and methodological transparency. Influential publishers and research funders have already adopted ARRIVE. Further dissemination and acknowledgement of the importance of these guidelines is vital to their widespread implementation. Conclusions and implications Wide implementation of the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting of in vivo preclinical research, especially pain research, are essential for a much needed increased transparency and quality in publishing such research. ARRIVE will also positively influence improvements in experimental design…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.sjpain.2013.02.002

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • To ensure scientific rigour, inclusion and exclusion criteria should be defined before the experiment starts and data are collected.

    “To ensure scientific rigour, the criteria should be defined before the experiment starts and data are collected [8,33,48,49].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rice, A. S. C., Morland, R., Huang, W., Currie, G. L., Sena, E. S., & Macleod, M. R.
Affiliations
  • Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Department Surgery & Cancer , Imperial College London , London United Kingdom
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Rice, Andrew S.C.
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Pain
Published
2013-04-01
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
58-62
ISSN
  • 1877-8860 (ISSN-L)
  • 1877-8879
OpenAlex
W2081097226
Cited by
42
References
7
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6
FWCI
7.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
ARRIVE guidelines, reporting guidelines, in vivo animal experiments, research transparency, methodological quality, bias mitigation, experimental design, replication study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review