Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,497

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Open access
Percie du Sert, Nathalie, Hurst, Viki, Ahluwalia, Amrita, Alam, Sabina, Avey, Marc T., Baker, Monya, Browne, William J., Clark, Alejandra, Cuthill, Innes C., Dirnagl, Ulrich, Emerson, Michael, Garner, Paul, Holgate, Stephen T., Howells, David W., Karp, Natasha A., Lazic, Stanley E., Lidster, Katie, MacCallum, Catriona J., Macleod, Malcolm, Pearl, Esther J., Petersen, Ole H., Rawle, Frances, Reynolds, Penny, Rooney, Kieron, Sena, Emily S., Silberberg, Shai D., Steckler, Thomas, Würbel, Hanno·2020·Experimental Physiology
DOI 10.1113/ep088870
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1113/ep088870

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Bate S. T., 2014, The design and statistical analysis of animal experiments, 310, 10.1017/CBO9781139344319 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1111/ejn.13519 · DOI
  4. Chambers K., 2019, Towards minimum reporting standards for life scientists, MetaArXiv
  5. 10.1038/d41586-018-06178-7 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1001/jama.296.14.1731 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1038/d41586-018-07245-9 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Hurst V., 2017, The ARRIVE guidelines survey, Open Science Framework
  10. 10.1113/expphysiol.2010.053793 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Kilkenny C., 2010, Animal research: Reporting in vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines, Journal of Physiology, 588, 2519, 10.1113/jphysiol.2010.192278 · DOI
  12. 10.1038/jcbfm.2010.220 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1111/j.1939-165X.2012.00418.x · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1038/nbt.2261 · DOI
  15. 10.1017/9781139696647 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1995.tb07534.x · DOI
  17. 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00873.x · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1124/mol.119.118927 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1080/15265160903318343 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Rands S. A., 2011, Inclusion of policies on ethical standards in animal experiments in biomedical science journals, Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 50, 901
  21. 10.1371/journal.pone.0165999 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1016/j.pain.2008.08.017 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1136/jme.2008.024299 · DOI · Paper page
  24. (5) 367. Epub 2013/06/14. PubMed PMID: 23762900.

Cited by

See all 3,497

Metadata

Authors
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., Garner, P., Holgate, S. T., Howells, D. W., Karp, N. A., Lazic, S. E., Lidster, K., MacCallum, C. J., Macleod, M., Pearl, E. J., Petersen, O. H., Rawle, F., Reynolds, P., Rooney, K., Sena, E. S., Silberberg, S. D., Steckler, T., & Würbel, H.
Venue
Experimental Physiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-07-14
Volume
105
Issue
9
Pages
1459-1466
ISSN
  • 0958-0670 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-445X
DOI
10.1113/ep088870
OpenAlex
W3047879827
Cited by
3,497
References
34
FWCI
504.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.