IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0197882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesia

Author

Listed:
  • Vivian Leung
  • Frédérik Rousseau-Blass
  • Guy Beauchamp
  • Daniel S J Pang

Abstract

Poor research reporting is a major contributing factor to low study reproducibility, financial and animal waste. The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines were developed to improve reporting quality and many journals support these guidelines. The influence of this support is unknown. We hypothesized that papers published in journals supporting the ARRIVE guidelines would show improved reporting compared with those in non-supporting journals. In a retrospective, observational cohort study, papers from 5 ARRIVE supporting (SUPP) and 2 non-supporting (nonSUPP) journals, published before (2009) and 5 years after (2015) the ARRIVE guidelines, were selected. Adherence to the ARRIVE checklist of 20 items was independently evaluated by two reviewers and items assessed as fully, partially or not reported. Mean percentages of items reported were compared between journal types and years with an unequal variance t-test. Individual items and sub-items were compared with a chi-square test. From an initial cohort of 956, 236 papers were included: 120 from 2009 (SUPP; n = 52, nonSUPP; n = 68), 116 from 2015 (SUPP; n = 61, nonSUPP; n = 55). The percentage of fully reported items was similar between journal types in 2009 (SUPP: 55.3 ± 11.5% [SD]; nonSUPP: 51.8 ± 9.0%; p = 0.07, 95% CI of mean difference -0.3–7.3%) and 2015 (SUPP: 60.5 ± 11.2%; nonSUPP; 60.2 ± 10.0%; p = 0.89, 95%CI -3.6–4.2%). The small increase in fully reported items between years was similar for both journal types (p = 0.09, 95% CI -0.5–4.3%). No paper fully reported 100% of items on the ARRIVE checklist and measures associated with bias were poorly reported. These results suggest that journal support for the ARRIVE guidelines has not resulted in a meaningful improvement in reporting quality, contributing to ongoing waste in animal research.

Suggested Citation

  • Vivian Leung & Frédérik Rousseau-Blass & Guy Beauchamp & Daniel S J Pang, 2018. "ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: Support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesi," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0197882
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197882
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197882&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0197882?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Leonard P Freedman & Iain M Cockburn & Timothy S Simcoe, 2015. "The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-9, June.
    3. Carol Kilkenny & William J Browne & Innes C Cuthill & Michael Emerson & Douglas G Altman, 2010. "Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-5, June.
    4. Carol Kilkenny & Nick Parsons & Ed Kadyszewski & Michael F W Festing & Innes C Cuthill & Derek Fry & Jane Hutton & Douglas G Altman, 2009. "Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(11), pages 1-11, November.
    5. David Baker & Katie Lidster & Ana Sottomayor & Sandra Amor, 2014. "Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-6, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dean A Fergusson & Marc T Avey & Carly C Barron & Mathew Bocock & Kristen E Biefer & Sylvain Boet & Stephane L Bourque & Isidora Conic & Kai Chen & Yuan Yi Dong & Grace M Fox & Ronald B George & Neil , 2019. "Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Gail F Davies & Beth J Greenhough & Pru Hobson-West & Robert G W Kirk & Ken Applebee & Laura C Bellingan & Manuel Berdoy & Henry Buller & Helen J Cassaday & Keith Davies & Daniela Diefenbacher & Tone , 2016. "Developing a Collaborative Agenda for Humanities and Social Scientific Research on Laboratory Animal Science and Welfare," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-12, July.
    3. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    4. Bettina Bert & Céline Heinl & Justyna Chmielewska & Franziska Schwarz & Barbara Grune & Andreas Hensel & Matthias Greiner & Gilbert Schönfelder, 2019. "Refining animal research: The Animal Study Registry," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-12, October.
    5. Beverly S Muhlhausler & Frank H Bloomfield & Matthew W Gillman, 2013. "Whole Animal Experiments Should Be More Like Human Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-6, February.
    6. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    7. Constance Holman & Sophie K Piper & Ulrike Grittner & Andreas Antonios Diamantaras & Jonathan Kimmelman & Bob Siegerink & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2016. "Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    8. Bernhard Voelkl & Lucile Vogt & Emily S Sena & Hanno Würbel, 2018. "Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    9. Muradchanian, Jasmine & Hoekstra, Rink & Kiers, Henk & van Ravenzwaaij, Don, 2020. "How Best to Quantify Replication Success? A Simulation Study on the Comparison of Replication Success Metrics," MetaArXiv wvdjf, Center for Open Science.
    10. Jeff Miller & Rolf Ulrich, 2019. "The quest for an optimal alpha," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, January.
    11. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Forsell, Eskil & Ho, Teck-Hua & Huber, Jurgen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Almenberg, Johan & Altmejd, Adam & Chan, Taizan & Heikensten, Emma & Holzmeist, 2016. "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in Economics," MPRA Paper 75461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. David Baker & Katie Lidster & Ana Sottomayor & Sandra Amor, 2014. "Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-6, January.
    13. Stavroula Kousta & Christine Ferguson & Emma Ganley, 2016. "Meta-Research: Broadening the Scope of PLOS Biology," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-2, January.
    14. Adriano Koshiyama & Nick Firoozye, 2019. "Avoiding Backtesting Overfitting by Covariance-Penalties: an empirical investigation of the ordinary and total least squares cases," Papers 1905.05023, arXiv.org.
    15. Hannah Fraser & Tim Parker & Shinichi Nakagawa & Ashley Barnett & Fiona Fidler, 2018. "Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, July.
    16. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    17. Estelle Dumas-Mallet & Andy Smith & Thomas Boraud & François Gonon, 2017. "Poor replication validity of biomedical association studies reported by newspapers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-15, February.
    18. David Chavalarias, 2017. "What’s wrong with Science?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 481-503, January.
    19. Tracey L Weissgerber & Vesna D Garovic & Jelena S Milin-Lazovic & Stacey J Winham & Zoran Obradovic & Jerome P Trzeciakowski & Natasa M Milic, 2016. "Reinventing Biostatistics Education for Basic Scientists," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-12, April.
    20. Gillian L Currie & Helena N Angel-Scott & Lesley Colvin & Fala Cramond & Kaitlyn Hair & Laila Khandoker & Jing Liao & Malcolm Macleod & Sarah K McCann & Rosie Morland & Nicki Sherratt & Robert Stewart, 2019. "Animal models of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A machine-assisted systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-34, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0197882. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.