The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research
Open accessAbstract
In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose”, meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1–21]. A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22]. It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2–14,16–20].
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
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., & for the CONSORT Group (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c332 · Cited by 9,329
Self-citationMoher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Self-citationGuidance 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 1×
“Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51].”
Self-citationCan 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
Guidelines for the Design and Statistical Analysis of Experiments Using Laboratory Animals
Festing, M. F. W., & Altman, D. G. (2002) · ILAR Journal · doi:10.1093/ilar.43.4.244 · Cited by 1,110
Self-citationA catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research
Simera, I., Moher, D., Hoey, J., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · European Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02234.x · Cited by 1,047
Self-citationPlint, A. C., Moher, D., Morrison, A., Schulz, K., Altman, D. G., Hill, C., & Gaboury, I. (2006) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00557.x · Cited by 872
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-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 · cited 1×
“The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2,3].”
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
Cited by
Nanoparticle toxicity by the gastrointestinal route: evidence and knowledge gaps
Bergin, I. L., & Witzmann, F. A. (2013) · International Journal of Biomedical Nanoscience and Nanotechnology · doi:10.1504/ijbnn.2013.054515 · Cited by 412
A translational framework to DELIVER nanomedicines to the clinic
Joyce, P., Allen, C. J., Alonso, M. J., Ashford, M., Bradbury, M. S., Germain, M., Kavallaris, M., Langer, R., Lammers, T., Peracchia, M. T., et al. (2024) · Nature Nanotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41565-024-01754-7 · Cited by 333
Stevens, A., Shamseer, L., Weinstein, E., Yazdi, F., Turner, L., Thielman, J., Altman, D. G., Hirst, A., Hoey, J., Palepu, A., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g3804 · Cited by 242
Self-citationWithaar, C., Meems, L. M. G., Markousis-Mavrogenis, G., Boogerd, C. J., Silljé, H. H. W., Schouten, E. M., Dokter, M. M., Voors, A. A., Westenbrink, B. D., Lam, C. S. P., et al. (2021) · Cardiovascular Research · doi:10.1093/cvr/cvaa256 · Cited by 223
Systematic reviews of animal models: methodology versus epistemology
Greek, R., & Menache, A. (2013) · International Journal of Medical Sciences · doi:10.7150/ijms.5529 · Cited by 207
Metadata
- Authors
- Kilkenny, C., Browne, W., Cuthill, I., Emerson, M., & Altman, D.
- Venue
- Animals
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2014-02-03
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-44
- ISSN
- 2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1998734009
- Cited by
- 707
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 32.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/ani4010035
- The paper
- Kilkenny, C., Browne, W., Cuthill, I., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. (2014). Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research. Animals. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani4010035
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.
