The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., et al. (2016) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18 · Cited by 18,423
Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412 · Cited by 7,300
Self-citationImproving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics · doi:10.4103/0976-500x.72351 · Cited by 6,277
Self-citationRaise standards for preclinical cancer research
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/483531a · Cited by 2,979 · cited 1×
“…point, where poor reporting impacts on the development of therapeutics and irreproducible findings can spawn an entire field of research, or trigger clinical studies, subjecting patients to interventions unlikely to be effective (Scott et al. 2008, Begley & Ellis, 2012, Begley & Ioannidis, 2015).”
BackgroundReporting 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
Self-citationThe preregistration revolution
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114 · Cited by 1,998
Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Simera, I., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 · Cited by 1,437 · cited 2×
“We used a Delphi exercise (Moher et al. 2010) with external stakeholders to maximise diversity in fields of expertise and geographical location, with experts from 19 countries providing feedback on each item, suggesting new items, and ranking items”
MethodCan Animal Models of Disease Reliably Inform Human Studies?
van der Worp, H. B., Howells, D. W., Sena, E. S., Porritt, M. J., Rewell, S., O'Collins, V., & Macleod, M. R. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245 · Cited by 1,354
Self-citationCurtis, M. J., Alexander, S., Cirino, G., Docherty, J. R., George, C. H., Giembycz, M. A., Hoyer, D., Insel, P. A., Izzo, A. A., Ji, Y., et al. (2018) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bph.14153 · Cited by 1,338
Self-citationWhat does research reproducibility mean?
Goodman, S. N., Fanelli, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027 · Cited by 1,293 · cited 1×
“In recent years, concerns about the reproducibility of research findings have been raised by scientists, funders, research users, and policy makers (Begley & Ioannidis, 2015, Goodman et al. 2016).”
BackgroundA 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
Self-citationKilkenny, C., Parsons, N., Kadyszewski, E., Festing, M. F. W., Cuthill, I. C., Fry, D., Hutton, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007824 · Cited by 860
Self-citationImproving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. G. (2012) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage · doi:10.1016/j.joca.2012.02.010 · Cited by 728
Self-citationKidwell, M. C., Lazarević, L. B., Baranski, E., Hardwicke, T. E., Piechowski, S., Falkenberg, L.-S., Kennett, C., Slowik, A., Sonnleitner, C., Hess-Holden, C., et al. (2016) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456 · Cited by 700
Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS
Scott, S., Kranz, J. E., Cole, J., Lincecum, J. M., Thompson, K., Kelly, N., Bostrom, A., Theodoss, J., Al‐Nakhala, B. M., Vieira, F. G., et al. (2008) · Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis · doi:10.1080/17482960701856300 · Cited by 504 · cited 1×
“If the research is not reported in enough detail, even when conducted rigorously, the benefits may not be realised, and the harm–benefit analysis and public trust in the research are undermined (Sena & Currie, 2019).”
BackgroundRisk of bias in reports of in vivo research: a focus for improvement
Macleod, M. R., Lawson McLean, A., Kyriakopoulou, A., Serghiou, S., de Wilde, A., Sherratt, N., Hirst, T., Hemblade, R., Bahor, Z., Nunes-Fonseca, C., et al. (2015) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273 · Cited by 358
Self-citationQuestionable research practices in ecology and evolution
Fraser, H., Parker, T., Nakagawa, S., Barnett, A., & Fidler, F. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200303 · Cited by 346
Good Laboratory Practice: Preventing Introduction of Bias at the Bench
Macleod, M. R., Fisher, M., O'Collins, V., Sena, E. S., Dirnagl, U., Bath, P. M. W., Buchan, A., van der Worp, H. B., Traystman, R., Minematsu, K., et al. (2009) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.525386 · Cited by 331
Self-citationAnimal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments: The ARRIVE Guidelines
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · The Journal of Gene Medicine · doi:10.1002/jgm.1473 · Cited by 256
Self-citationon behalf of the IICARus Collaboration, Hair, K., Macleod, M. R., & Sena, E. S. (2019) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3 · Cited by 174
Self-citationLeung, V., Rousseau-Blass, F., Beauchamp, G., & Pang, D. S. J. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197882 · Cited by 172
Reproducible and reusable research: are journal data sharing policies meeting the mark?
Vasilevsky, N. A., Minnier, J., Haendel, M. A., & Champieux, R. E. (2017) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.3208 · Cited by 165
Ramirez, F. D., Motazedian, P., Jung, R. G., Di Santo, P., MacDonald, Z. D., Moreland, R., Simard, T., Clancy, A. A., Russo, J. J., Welch, V. A., et al. (2017) · Circulation Research · doi:10.1161/circresaha.117.310628 · Cited by 138 · cited 1×
“…contrast, other studies using shorter checklists (primarily focused on experimental design) with more editorial follow-up have shown a marked improvement in the nature and detail of the information included in publications (Han et al. 2017, Ramirez et al. 2017; The NPQIP Collaborative group, 2019).”
ResultHan, S., Olonisakin, T. F., Pribis, J. P., Zupetic, J., Yoon, J. H., Holleran, K. M., Jeong, K., Shaikh, N., Rubio, D. M., & Lee, J. S. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183591 · Cited by 131
The devil is in the details: incomplete reporting in preclinical animal research
Avey, M. T., Moher, D., Sullivan, K. J., Fergusson, D., Griffin, G., Grimshaw, J. M., Hutton, B., Lalu, M. M., Macleod, M., Marshall, J., et al. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166733 · Cited by 130
Self-citationThe Experimental Design Assistant
Percie du Sert, N., Bamsey, I., Bate, S. T., Berdoy, M., Clark, R. A., Cuthill, I., Fry, D., Karp, N. A., Macleod, M., Moon, L., et al. (2017) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2003779 · Cited by 118
Self-citationAncker, J. S., & Flanagin, A. (2007) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-007-9011-z · Cited by 112
Improving bioscience research reporting: ARRIVE-ing at a solution
Kilkenny, C., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · Laboratory Animals · doi:10.1258/la.2010.0010021 · Cited by 103 · cited 1×
“…of the items that should be included in any manuscript that reports in vivo experiments, to ensure a comprehensive and transparent description (Kilkenny & Altman, 2010, Kilkenny et al. 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, McGrath et al. 2010, Kilkenny et al. 2011, Kilkenny et al. 2012a, 2012b).”
BackgroundDid a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences research improve reporting?
The NPQIP Collaborative group, Study steering committee, Macleod, M., Sena, E., Howells, D., Macleod, M., Sena, E., Howells, D., Kiermer, V., Swaminathan, S., et al. (2019) · BMJ Open Science · doi:10.1136/bmjos-2017-000035 · Cited by 102
Self-citationReproducibility2020: Progress and priorities
Freedman, L. P., Venugopalan, G., & Wisman, R. (2017) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.11334.1 · Cited by 102
Giofrè, D., Cumming, G., Fresc, L., Boedker, I., & Tressoldi, P. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175583 · Cited by 98
Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing
Prager, E. M., Chambers, K. E., Plotkin, J. L., McArthur, D. L., Bandrowski, A. E., Bansal, N., Martone, M. E., Bergstrom, H. C., Bespalov, A., & Graf, C. (2019) · Journal of Neuroscience Research · doi:10.1002/jnr.24340 · Cited by 83
The researchers’ view of scientific rigor—survey on the conduct and reporting of in vivo research
Reichlin, T. S., Vogt, L., & Würbel, H. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165999 · Cited by 72 · cited 1×
“…that scientific publications often lack key information and that there continues to be considerable scope for improvement (McCance, 1995, Hackam & Redelmeier, 2006, Kilkenny et al. 2009, Macleod et al. 2009, Rice et al. 2009, van der Worp et al. 2010, Glasziou et al. 2014, Macleod et al. 2015).”
BackgroundSelf-citation(2013) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2471 · Cited by 37
How our approaches to assessing benefits and harms can be improved
Sena, E., & Currie, G. (2019) · Animal Welfare · doi:10.7120/09627286.28.1.107 · Cited by 23
Self-citationHurst, V., & du Sert, N. P. (2018) · OSF Registries · doi:10.17605/osf.io/g8t5q · Cited by 8
Self-citation
Cited by
Sourris, K. C., Ding, Y., Maxwell, S. S., Al-sharea, A., Kantharidis, P., Mohan, M., Rosado, C. J., Penfold, S. A., Haase, C., Xu, Y., et al. (2024) · Kidney International · doi:10.1016/j.kint.2023.09.029 · Cited by 143
Gemmer, A., Mirkes, K., Anneser, L., Eilers, T., Kibat, C., Mathuru, A., Ryu, S., & Schuman, E. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-07990-y · Cited by 56
Huntemann, N., Vogelsang, A., Groeneweg, L., Willison, A., Herrmann, A. M., Meuth, S. G., & Eichler, S. (2022) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2021.109443 · Cited by 23
Augestad, I. L., Dekens, D., Karampatsi, D., Elabi, O., Zabala, A., Pintana, H., Larsson, M., Nyström, T., Paul, G., Darsalia, V., et al. (2022) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bph.15524 · Cited by 21
May, S., Müller, M., Livingstone, C. R., Skalka, G. L., Walsh, P. J., Nixon, C., Hedley, A., Shaw, R., Clark, W., Vande Voorde, J., et al. (2023) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2023.01.009 · Cited by 13
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
- The Journal of Physiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-07-14
- Volume
- 598
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 3793-3801
- ISSN
- 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7793
- OpenAlex
- W4253545088
- Cited by
- 593
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 82.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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.
