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
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [48]
Cites
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/483531a · Cited by 2,979 · see citing works
CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., & for the CONSORT Group (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000251 · Cited by 2,296 · see citing works
Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?
Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1 · Cited by 1,888 · see citing works
A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research
Landis, S. C., Amara, S. G., Asadullah, K., Austin, C. P., Blumenstein, R., Bradley, E. W., Crystal, R. G., Darnell, R. B., Ferrante, R. J., Fillit, H., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11556 · Cited by 1,196 · see citing works
Self-citationPublication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy
Sena, E. S., van der Worp, H. B., Bath, P. M. W., Howells, D. W., & Macleod, M. R. (2010) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000344 · Cited by 600 · see citing works
Self-citationMacleod, M. R., van der Worp, H. B., Sena, E. S., Howells, D. W., Dirnagl, U., & Donnan, G. A. (2008) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.515957 · Cited by 319 · see citing works
Self-citationHasnie, F. S., Breuer, J., Parker, S., Wallace, V., Blackbeard, J., Lever, I., Kinchington, P. R., Dickenson, A. H., Pheby, T., & Rice, A. S. C. (2007) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.11.029 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0
Percie du Sert, N., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., et al. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411 · Cited by 2,677 · see citing works
“To ensure scientific rigour, the criteria should be defined before the experiment starts and data are collected [8,33,48,49].”
BackgroundSelf-citationAnimal models of human disease: challenges in enabling translation
McGonigle, P., & Ruggeri, B. (2014) · Biochemical Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2013.08.006 · Cited by 610 · see citing works
Reproducible and replicable pain research: a critical review
Lee, H., Lamb, S. E., Bagg, M. K., Toomey, E., Cashin, A. G., & Moseley, G. L. (2018) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001254 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- 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