ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2019
A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus).
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
90 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Are biologically meaningful effect sizes a factor in study design? A systematic review of translational chronic variable stress studies.Experimental physiology · 2026Pooled it
- Building a synthesis-ready research ecosystem: fostering collaboration and open science to accelerate biomedical translation.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Recommendations for robust and reproducible preclinical research in personalised medicine.BMC medicine · 2023Guideline
- A methodological review with meta-epidemiological analysis of preclinical systematic reviews with meta-analyses.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2021Guideline
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.PLoS medicine · 2021Guideline
- The Synaptic Scaling Literature: A Systematic Review of Methodologies and Quality of Reporting.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Animal models of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A machine-assisted systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS biology · 2019Pooled it
- There is no reliable evidence that providing authors with customized article templates including items from reporting guidelines improves completeness of reporting: the GoodReports randomized trial (GRReaT).BMC medical research methodology · 2025Trial
- Effect of an editorial intervention to improve the completeness of reporting of randomised trials: a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2020Trial
- We need less animal research, better animal research, and animal research done for the right reasons.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Pre-Exposure Intranasal Treatment with Neomycin Sulfate Reduces Transmission of Influenza B Virus.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Oral Toxicity Profile of a Novel Silk Lutein Extract and Assessment of Its Cardiovascular Benefits in Rodents.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Data welfare is animal welfare: Building a WellFAIR research ecosystem.Neuroscience applied · 2026Article
- Participation of the Periosteum, Endosteum, and Hematogenous Marrow in the Early Osseointegration of a Titanium Implant Inserted in Contact with the Hematogenous Marrow.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Article
- Humanized mouse models in MDS.Cell death & disease · 2025Review
- Reporting preclinical gene therapy studies in the field of Niemann-Pick type C disease according to the ARRIVE guidelines.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Review
30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines are widely endorsed but compliance is limited. We sought to determine whether journal-requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist improves full compliance with the guidelines.
methodsIn a randomised controlled trial, manuscripts reporting in vivo animal research submitted to PLOS ONE (March-June 2015) were randomly allocated to either requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist or current standard practice. Authors, academic editors, and peer reviewers were blinded to group allocation. Trained reviewers performed outcome adjudication in duplicate by assessing manuscripts against an operationalised version of the ARRIVE guidelines that consists 108 items. Our primary outcome was the between-group differences in the proportion of manuscripts meeting all ARRIVE guideline checklist subitems.
resultsWe randomised 1689 manuscripts (control:
conclusionsThese results suggest that altering the editorial process to include requests for a completed ARRIVE checklist is not enough to improve compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines. Other approaches, such as more stringent editorial policies or a targeted approach on key quality items, may promote improvements in reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.