CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6,277Animal testing and alternativesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsResearch Data Management Practices

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 access
Kilkenny, Carol, Browne, William J., Cuthill, Innes C., Emerson, Michael, Altman, Douglas G.·2010·Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics
DOI 10.4103/0976-500x.72351PMC PMC3043335
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

animals used (i.e., species/strain, sex, and age/weight). Most of the papers surveyed did not report using randomisation (87%) or blinding (86%) to reduce bias in animal selection and outcome assessment. Only 70% of the publications that used statistical methods fully described them and presented the results with a measure of precision or variability [5]. These findings are a cause for concern and are consistent with reviews of many research areas, including clinical studies, published in recent years [2–22].

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 · 10.4103/0976-500x.72351

Cites

13 of 13 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

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?

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

Show all 13 references

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. [1]Simera I Altman DG Writing a research article that is “fit for purpose”: EQUATOR network and reporting guidelines Evid Based Med 2009 14 132 4 19794009
  2. [4]Sargeant JM Thompson A Valcour J Elgie R Saint-Onge J Marcynuk P Quality of reporting of clinical trials of dogs and cats and associations with treatment effects J Vet Intern Med 2010 24 44 50 19807866
  3. [6]Sargeant JM Elgie R Valcour J Saint-Onge J Thompson A Marcynuk P Methodological quality and completeness of reporting in clinical trials conducted in livestock species Prev Vet Med 2009 91 107 15 19573943
  4. [7]Macleod MR Fisher M O’Collins V Sena ES Dirnagl U Bath PM Good laboratory practice. Preventing introduction of bias at the bench Stroke 2009 40 e50 2 18703798
  5. [8]Hainsworth AH Markus HS Do in vivo experimental models reflect human cerebral small vessel disease? A systematic review J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2008 28 1877 91 18698331
  6. [9]Rice AS Cimino-Brown D Eisenach JC Kontinen VK Lacroix-Fralish ML Machin I Animal models and the prediction of efficacy in clinical trials of analgesic drugs: A critical appraisal and call for uniform reporting standards Pain 2008 139 243 7 18814968
  7. [10]Sherwin CM Animal welfare: Reporting details is good science Nature 2007 448 251 17637638
  8. [11]Jafari P Azuaje F An assessment of recently published gene expression analyses: Reporting experimental design and statistics BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2006 6 27 16790051 PMC1523197
  9. [12]Hackam DG Redelmeier DA Translation of research evidence from animals to humans JAMA 2006 296 1731 2 17032985
  10. [13]Perel P Roberts I Sena E Wheble P Briscoe C Sandercock P Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review BMJ 2006 334 197 17175568 PMC1781970
  11. [14]Macleod M What can systematic review and meta-analysis tell us about the experimental data supporting stroke drug development? Int J Neuroprot Neuroregener 2005 1 201
  12. [15]Tooth L Ware R Bain C Purdie DM Dobson A Quality of reporting of observational longitudinal research Am J Epidemiol 2005 161 280 8 15671260
  13. [16]Pound P Ebrahim S Sandercock P Bracken MB Roberts I Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ 2004 328 514 7 14988196 PMC351856
  14. [18]Morris CE Bardin M Berge O Frey-Klett P Fromin N Microbial biodiversity: Approaches to experimental design and hypothesis testing in primary scientific literature from 1975 to 1999 Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2002 66 592 616 12456784 PMC134657
  15. [19]Smith JA Birke L Sadler D Reporting animal use in scientific papers Lab Anim 1997 31 312 7 9350702
  16. [20]McCance I Assessment of statistical procedures used in papers in the Australian Veterinary Journal Aust Vet J 1995 72 322 8 8585846
  17. [21]Pocock SJ Hughes MD Lee RJ Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals N Engl J Med 1987 317 426 32 3614286
  18. [22]Chalmers I Glasziou P Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence Lancet 2009 374 86 9 19525005
  19. [26]Altman DG Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: Survey of instructions for authors BMJ 2005 330 1056 7 15879389 PMC557224
  20. [27]Hopewell S Altman DG Moher D Schulz KF Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: A survey of journal editors and journal ‘instructions to Authors’ Trials 2008 9 20 18423021 PMC2359733
  21. [29]Kane RL Wang J Garrard J Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement J Clin Epidemiol 2007 60 241 9 17292017
  22. [30]Altman DG Simera I Hoey J Moher D Schulz K EQUATOR: Reporting guidelines for health research Lancet 2008 371 1149 50 18395566
  23. [32]Wager E Field EA Grossman L Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies Curr Med Res Opin 2003 19 149 54 12814125
  24. [33]Brazma A Hingamp P Quackenbush J Sherlock G Spellman P Stoeckert C Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data Nat Genet 2001 29 365 71 11726920
  25. [35]Stone SP Cooper BS Kibbler CC Cookson BD Roberts JA The ORION statement: Guidelines for transparent reporting of outbreak reports and intervention studies of nosocomial infection J Antimicrob Chemother 2007 59 833 40 17387116
  26. [36]Peters JL Sutton AJ Jones DR Rushton L Abrams KR A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting J Environ Sci Health B 2006 41 1245 58 16923604
  27. [37]O’Connor AM Sargeant JM Gardner IA Dickson JS Torrence ME Dewey CE The REFLECT statement: Methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomised controlled trials for livestock and food safety Prev Vet Med 2010 93 11 8 19926151
  28. [38]International Committee of Medical Journal EditorsUniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals Available from: http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf [last accessed on 2010 Jan 22]
  29. [39]Council of Science Editors – Editorial Policy Committee (2008–2009) CSE’s White Paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. [last updated on 2009] Available from: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/entire_whitepaper.pdf [last accessed on 2010 Jan 22]
  30. [40]Committee on publication ethics (COPE)COPE best practice guidelines for journal editors Available from: http://www.publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf [last accessed on 2010 Jan 22]
  31. [41]Nuffield Council on Bioethics: The Ethics of Research involving Animals (2005) Chapter 15: Discussion and Recommendations; pp 313, paragraph 15.58 Available from: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/RIA_Report_FINAL-opt.pdf [last accessed on 2010 Jan 26]
  32. [42]Drummond GB Reporting ethical matters in The Journal of Physiology: Standards and advice J Physiol 2009 587 713 9 19218620 PMC2669962
  33. [43]Osborne NJ Payne D Newman ML Journal editorial policies, animal welfare and the 3Rs Am J Bioeth 2009 9 55 9 20013503
  34. [45]Wurbel H Publications should include an animal welfare section Nature 2007 446 257 17361159
  35. [46]Alfaro V Specification of laboratory animal use in scientific articles: Current low detail in the journal’s instructions for authors and some proposals Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 2005 27 495 502 16258595
  36. [48]Öbrink KJ Rehbinder C Animal definition: A necessity for the validity of animal experiments? Lab Anim 2000 34 121 30 10817450
  37. [49]Boisvert DP Zutphen LF Balls M Editorial policies and animal welfare Animal Alternatives, Welfare and Ethics 1997 Elsevier 399 404
  38. [50]Ellery AW Guidelines for specification of animals and husbandry methods when reporting the results of animal experiments. Working Committee for the Biological characterisation of laboratory animals/GV-Solas Lab Anim 1985 19 106 8 3999685
  39. [52]Mignini LE Khan KS Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: A survey of reviews of basic research BMC Med Res Methodol 2006 6 10 16533396 PMC1435907
  40. [53]Macleod MR Collins T Howells DW Donnan GA Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias Stroke 2004 35 1203 8 15060322
  41. [54]Roberts I Kwan I Evans P Haig S Does animal experimentation inform human healthcare? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation BMJ 2002 324 474 6 11859053 PMC1122396
  42. [55]Horn J de Haan RJ Vermeulen M Limburg M Nimodipine in animal model experiments of focal cerebral ischemia: A systematic review Stroke 2001 32 2433 8 11588338
  43. [57]Kilkenny C Brown WJ Cuthill IC Emerson M Altman DG Animal research: Reporting In vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines Exp Physiol 2010 95 842 4 20610776
  44. [58]Kilkenny C Brown WJ Cuthill IC Emerson M Altman DG Animal research: Reporting In vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines J Physiol 2010 588 2519 21 20634180 PMC2916981
  45. [59]Kilkenny C Brown WJ Cuthill IC Emerson M Altman DG Animal research: Reporting In vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines Br J Pharmacol 2010 160 1577 9 20649561 PMC2936830
  46. [60]Kilkenny C Browne W Cuthill IC Emerson M Altman DG NC3Rs Reporting Guidelines Working Group. Animal research: Reporting in vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines Br J Pharmacol 2010 160 1577 9 20649561 PMC2936830

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M., & Altman, D. G.
Affiliations
  • National Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Kilkenny, Carol
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-12
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
94-99
ISSN
  • 0976-500X (ISSN-L)
  • 0976-5018
DOI
10.4103/0976-500x.72351
PMC
PMC3043335
OpenAlex
W2049069390
Cited by
6,277
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 201 · 2024: 326 · 2023: 364 · 2022: 460 · 2021: 802 · 2020: 870 · 2019: 701 · 2018: 611 · 2017: 533 · 2016: 424 · 2015: 341 · 2014: 264 · 2013: 143 · 2012: 96
FWCI
160.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
Keywords
ARRIVE guidelines, animal research reporting, reporting guidelines, in vivo experiments, research reproducibility, animal experimentation
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Husbandry, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Peer Review, Periodicals as Topic, Quality Control, Research Design, Guidelines as Topic, Animal Experimentation, Checklist

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