ArticleNephron2024
Reporting Practices for Animal Studies on Peritoneal Dialysis Conducted in 2021-2023 after the Introduction of the ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines.
Article in Nephron, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving the transparency of animal experiments: valuable lessons learned from a systematic analysis of registration protocols.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Phage-antibiotic synergistic effect for treating cutaneous wounds infections caused by MRSA and the assessment of wound healing biomarkers in a rabbit model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe first version of Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments (ARRIVE 1.0) guidelines was introduced to improve reporting of animal research but did not lead to major improvements in this respect. This applied also to animal studies on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Here, we examined the performance of the revised version of these guidelines (ARRIVE 2.0).
methodsEighty-nine relevant articles published in 2018-2020 (ARRIVE 1.0 period) and 97 published in 2021-2023 (ARRIVE 2.0 period) were identified in PubMed® and analyzed for completeness and transparency of reporting.
resultsIn both periods, most studies were carried out in Asia, on rodents, and concerned the peritoneal pathophysiology. During ARRIVE 2.0, more studies were published in higher impact factor journals with the focus on pharmacology and immunology. Compared to ARRIVE 1.0, general aspects of study design and reporting improved during ARRIVE 2.0 period in studies generated in Europe and USA but did not change significantly in Asia. Detailed analysis showed no global improvement in completeness of reporting key information included in the ARRIVE 2.0 Essential 10 checklist. Articles from both periods were deficient in sample size calculations, use of blinding, recording adverse events and drop-outs, and specification of appropriate statistical methods. The level of reporting during ARRIVE 2.0 did not correspond to the journal impact factor and the presence of recommendations for the use of ARRIVE 2.0 in their instructions to authors.
conclusionSo far, ARRIVE 2.0 has not produced significant improvements in the reporting of animal studies in PD.
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.