Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32660541›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2020

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Nathalie Percie du Sert, Viki Hurst, Amrita Ahluwalia, Sabina Alam, Marc T Avey, Monya Baker, William J Browne, Alejandra Clark, Innes C Cuthill, Ulrich Dirnagl and 18 more

Abstract readDuplicate Publication
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 253 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
253citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

253 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Enteric Nervous System Damage by Food Contaminants: A Pathway to Neurodegeneration?Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

193 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

28 authors.

Nathalie Percie du SertExperimental Design and Reporting, NC3Rs, London, UK. nathalie.perciedusert@nc3rs.org.uk.
Viki HurstExperimental Design and Reporting, NC3Rs, London, UK.
Amrita AhluwaliaThe William Harvey Research Institute, London, UK.
Sabina AlamPublishing Ethics and Integrity, Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK.
Marc T AveyHealth Science Practice, ICF, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Monya BakerOpinion, Nature, San Francisco, California, USA.
William J BrowneSchool of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Alejandra ClarkLife Sciences, PLOS ONE, Cambridge, UK.
Innes C CuthillSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ulrich DirnaglQUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health & Department of Experimental Neurology, Charite Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Michael EmersonNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Paul GarnerCentre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health, Clinical Sciences Department, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Stephen T HolgateClinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
David W HowellsTasmanian School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Natasha A KarpData Sciences & Quantitative Biology, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
Stanley E LazicPrioris.ai Inc, Ottawa, Canada.
Katie LidsterAnimal Welfare, NC3Rs, London, UK.
Catriona J MacCallumOpen Science, Hindawi Ltd, London, UK.
Malcolm MacleodCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Esther J PearlExperimental Design and Reporting, NC3Rs, London, UK.
Ole H PetersenAcademia Europaea Knowledge Hub, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Frances RawlePolicy, Ethics and Governance, Medical Research Council, London, UK.
Penny ReynoldsStatistics in Anesthesiology Research (STAR), Department of Anesthesiology College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Kieron RooneyDiscipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Emily S SenaCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Shai D SilberbergResearch Quality, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Thomas StecklerJanssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium.
Hanno WürbelVeterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationGuidelines as TopicResearch ReportAnimalsChecklist

Identifiers

PMID32660541
PMCPMC7359286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.