Carol KilkennypersName, William J. BrownepersName, Innes C. CuthillpersName, Michael EmersonpersName, Douglas G. AltmanpersName (2010date). “Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research.” PLoS Biologytitle·j.
Object of study — inadequate reporting of animal experiments and the minimum informationterm needed for critical review, synthesis, and repetition
Research question — how reporting guidance can make published animal researchterm complete, transparent, assessable, reusable, and less wasteful
Contribution — the ARRIVEterm guidelines, a consensus-developed checklist of twenty minimum reporting items for animal researchterm
Cross-disciplinary analysis
content-tags & facets:
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | scientific, ethical, and economic loss caused by incomplete descriptions of animal-study methods and results — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | |
| claim-type | method — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | |
| method — evidence | — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | |
| object of study — evidence | — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | |
| research question — evidence | — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | |
| contribution — evidence | — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | |
| mechanism | incomplete information makes publications unusable for policy and clinical or scientific practice — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | method and result detail enables peer critique, relevance assessment, validity judgment, and experimental repetition — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | reporting guidelines specify the information researchers and reviewers should expect in an article — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | animal-number reporting supports significance assessment, data reanalysis, and procedural repetition — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | ARRIVE packages minimum information into a twenty-item reporting checklist — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | the checklist joins animal characteristics, husbandry, and experimental, statistical, and analytical method details — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | expert working-group consensus produces a draft that wider scientific consultation then refines — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | authors use ARRIVE during manuscript preparation and reviewers use it for quality assurance — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | mechanisms[7] |
| mechanism | well-designed and well-reported studies supply the evidence units from which systematic reviews are constructed — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | mechanisms[8] |
| mechanism | journal endorsement and coordinated stakeholder dissemination extend guideline adoption — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | mechanisms[9] |
| critiques | inadequate biomedical reporting that leaves otherwise sound science unusable — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | claim_relations[0] |
| supports | complete reporting as a prerequisite for peer review, reuse, validity assessment, and replication — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | claim_relations[1] |
| supports | reporting guidelines as an empirically promising intervention — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | claim_relations[2] |
| proposes | the ARRIVE animal-research reporting guidelines — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | claim_relations[3] |
| defines | a twenty-item minimum-information checklist for animal-research publications — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | claim_relations[4] |
| supports | consensus and multidisciplinary consultation in guideline development — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | claim_relations[5] |
| qualifies | ARRIVE as guidance rather than a mandatory prescriptive reporting structure — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | claim_relations[6] |
| recommends | coordinated adoption by authors, editors, reviewers, funders, journals, and the scientific community — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | claim_relations[7] |
| sense | fit for purpose - containing enough relevant information to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | senses[0] |
| sense | good reporting - sufficient methods and results detail for critique, interpretation, reliability assessment, and repetition — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | senses[1] |
| sense | reporting guidelines - guidance specifying which information belongs in a research article — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | senses[2] |
| sense | ARRIVE - Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | senses[3] |
| sense | minimum information - twenty classes of detail required for comprehensive animal-research reporting — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | senses[4] |
| sense | laboratory animal - any animal species undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | senses[5] |
| sense | quality assurance - peer-review checking for completeness and transparency using the ARRIVE checklist — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | senses[6] |
| sense | essential building blocks - well-designed and well-reported animal studies composing an evidence synthesis — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | senses[7] |
| note | inadequate biomedical reporting that leaves otherwise sound science unusable — The opening problem statement. — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | claim_relations[0] |
| weight | inadequate biomedical reporting that leaves otherwise sound science unusable — 0.99 — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | claim_relations[0] |
| note | complete reporting as a prerequisite for peer review, reuse, validity assessment, and replication — The stated rationale for reporting detail. — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | claim_relations[1] |
| weight | complete reporting as a prerequisite for peer review, reuse, validity assessment, and replication — 0.99 — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | claim_relations[1] |
| note | reporting guidelines as an empirically promising intervention — The paper cites the emerging CONSORT evidence. — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | claim_relations[2] |
| weight | reporting guidelines as an empirically promising intervention — 0.95 — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | claim_relations[2] |
| note | the ARRIVE animal-research reporting guidelines — The paper explicitly leads the guideline initiative. — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | claim_relations[3] |
| weight | the ARRIVE animal-research reporting guidelines — 0.99 — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | claim_relations[3] |
| note | a twenty-item minimum-information checklist for animal-research publications — The central artifact is enumerated and scoped. — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | claim_relations[4] |
| weight | a twenty-item minimum-information checklist for animal-research publications — 0.99 — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | claim_relations[4] |
| note | consensus and multidisciplinary consultation in guideline development — The development process is explicitly justified. — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | claim_relations[5] |
| weight | consensus and multidisciplinary consultation in guideline development — 0.99 — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | claim_relations[5] |
| note | ARRIVE as guidance rather than a mandatory prescriptive reporting structure — The scope paragraph expressly limits the guideline. — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | claim_relations[6] |
| weight | ARRIVE as guidance rather than a mandatory prescriptive reporting structure — 0.99 — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | claim_relations[6] |
| note | coordinated adoption by authors, editors, reviewers, funders, journals, and the scientific community — The implementation recommendation is explicit. — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | claim_relations[7] |
| weight | coordinated adoption by authors, editors, reviewers, funders, journals, and the scientific community — 0.99 — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | claim_relations[7] |
| note | incomplete reporting —causes→ limited value — Direct positive production of reduced publication utility. — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | concept_edges[0] |
| relation | incomplete reporting —causes→ limited value — Incomplete reporting renders many publications of limited value. — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | incomplete reporting —causes→ limited value — 0.85 — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | CONSORT Statement —causes→ quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials — Explicit measured improvement. — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | concept_edges[1] |
| relation | CONSORT Statement —causes→ quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials — Evidence shows that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of clinical-trial reports. — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | CONSORT Statement —causes→ quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials — 0.9 — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | ARRIVE —same-as→ Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments — Explicit referred-to-as naming equivalence. — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | concept_edges[2] |
| relation | ARRIVE —same-as→ Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments — The animal-research reporting guidelines are referred to as ARRIVE, meaning Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments. — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | concept_edges[2] |
| note | checklist of 20 items —part-of→ ARRIVE — Direct consists-of containment. — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | concept_edges[3] |
| relation | checklist of 20 items —part-of→ ARRIVE — The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items. — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | concept_edges[3] |
| relation | CONSORT Statement → reporting guidelines — The CONSORT Statement was one of the first reporting guidelines. — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | unhoused_relations[0] |
| relation | Well-designed and -reported animal studies → systematic reviews of animal research — Well-designed and reported animal studies are building blocks from which a systematic review is constructed. — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | unhoused_relations[1] |
| relation | poor reporting → waste of financial resources — Poor reporting makes publications unusable and contributes to cumulative research waste. — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | unhoused_relations[2] |
| weight | poor reporting → waste of financial resources — 0.8 — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | unhoused_relations[2] |
| relation | Failure to describe research methods → scientific, ethical, and economic implications — Failure to describe methods and results has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications. — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | unhoused_relations[3] |
| weight | Failure to describe research methods → scientific, ethical, and economic implications — 0.7 — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | unhoused_relations[3] |
| relation | randomisation → bias in animal selection — Randomisation is reported as a method used to reduce bias in animal selection. — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | unhoused_relations[4] |
| weight | randomisation → bias in animal selection — 0.9 — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | unhoused_relations[4] |
| relation | blinding → outcome assessment — Blinding is reported as a method used to reduce bias in outcome assessment. — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | unhoused_relations[5] |
| weight | blinding → outcome assessment — 0.9 — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | unhoused_relations[5] |
| relation | level of detail of methods → peer review process — The detail of methods is crucial to peer review and later use of the knowledge base. — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | unhoused_relations[6] |
| weight | level of detail of methods → peer review process — 0.95 — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | unhoused_relations[6] |
| relation | presentation of key results → knowledge base — Presentation of key results affects the utility and validity of the knowledge base. — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | unhoused_relations[7] |
| weight | presentation of key results → knowledge base — 0.9 — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | unhoused_relations[7] |
| relation | research articles → in-depth critique — Research articles should include enough relevant information for in-depth critique. — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | unhoused_relations[8] |
| weight | research articles → in-depth critique — 0.95 — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | unhoused_relations[8] |
| relation | number of animals used → biological and statistical significance — Reporting animal numbers enables assessment of biological and statistical significance. — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[9] |
| weight | number of animals used → biological and statistical significance — 0.95 — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[9] |
| relation | number of animals used → data reanalysed — Reporting animal numbers is necessary for data reanalysis. — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[10] |
| weight | number of animals used → data reanalysed — 0.95 — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[10] |
| relation | Improved reporting → availability and utility of the information — Improved reporting maximises the availability and utility of information from every animal and experiment. — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[11] |
| weight | Improved reporting → availability and utility of the information — 0.9 — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[11] |
| relation | Improved reporting → unnecessary animal use — Improved reporting prevents unnecessary animal use in future. — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[12] |
| weight | Improved reporting → unnecessary animal use — 0.9 — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[12] |
| relation | CONSORT Statement → ARRIVE — ARRIVE was developed using the CONSORT Statement as its foundation. — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[13] |
| weight | CONSORT Statement → ARRIVE — 0.99 — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[13] |
| relation | minimum information → accurate critical review — The twenty-item minimum information set permits accurate critical review of what was done and found. — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | unhoused_relations[14] |
| weight | minimum information → accurate critical review — 0.95 — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | unhoused_relations[14] |
| relation | Consensus and consultation → guideline development process — Consensus and consultation are described as the corner-stones of guideline development. — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | unhoused_relations[15] |
| relation | wider consultation with the scientific community → final version of the checklist — Feedback from wider consultation was incorporated into the final checklist. — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | unhoused_relations[16] |
| weight | wider consultation with the scientific community → final version of the checklist — 0.95 — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | unhoused_relations[16] |
| relation | ARRIVE → comparative experiments — ARRIVE applies to comparative animal experiments and other study designs. — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | unhoused_relations[17] |
| relation | ARRIVE → mandatory or absolutely prescriptive — ARRIVE is not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive. — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | unhoused_relations[18] |
| relation | ARRIVE → quality assurance — Authors and peer reviewers can use the checklist for quality assurance. — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | unhoused_relations[19] |
| weight | ARRIVE → quality assurance — 0.95 — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | unhoused_relations[19] |
| relation | reporting omissions → barrier to reaching any useful conclusion — Reporting omissions combine with animal-model limitations to block useful efficacy conclusions. — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | unhoused_relations[20] |
| weight | reporting omissions → barrier to reaching any useful conclusion — 0.9 — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | unhoused_relations[20] |
| relation | collective efforts → improvements in reporting research using animals — Reporting improvement requires collective effort by authors, editors, reviewers, and funders. — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | unhoused_relations[21] |
| weight | collective efforts → improvements in reporting research using animals — 0.95 — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | unhoused_relations[21] |
| relation | ARRIVE → practical resource — ARRIVE provides a practical resource to aid reporting improvements. — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | unhoused_relations[22] |
| weight | ARRIVE → practical resource — 0.99 — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | unhoused_relations[22] |
| no type for this | CONSORT Statement → reporting guidelines — The CONSORT Statement was one of the first reporting guidelines. — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | unhoused_relations[0] |
| no type for this | Well-designed and -reported animal studies → systematic reviews of animal research — Well-designed and reported animal studies are building blocks from which a systematic review is constructed. — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | unhoused_relations[1] |
| no type for this | poor reporting → waste of financial resources — Poor reporting makes publications unusable and contributes to cumulative research waste. — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | unhoused_relations[2] |
| no type for this | Failure to describe research methods → scientific, ethical, and economic implications — Failure to describe methods and results has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications. — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | unhoused_relations[3] |
| no type for this | randomisation → bias in animal selection — Randomisation is reported as a method used to reduce bias in animal selection. — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | unhoused_relations[4] |
| no type for this | blinding → outcome assessment — Blinding is reported as a method used to reduce bias in outcome assessment. — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | unhoused_relations[5] |
| no type for this | level of detail of methods → peer review process — The detail of methods is crucial to peer review and later use of the knowledge base. — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | unhoused_relations[6] |
| no type for this | presentation of key results → knowledge base — Presentation of key results affects the utility and validity of the knowledge base. — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | unhoused_relations[7] |
| no type for this | research articles → in-depth critique — Research articles should include enough relevant information for in-depth critique. — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | unhoused_relations[8] |
| no type for this | number of animals used → biological and statistical significance — Reporting animal numbers enables assessment of biological and statistical significance. — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[9] |
| no type for this | number of animals used → data reanalysed — Reporting animal numbers is necessary for data reanalysis. — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[10] |
| no type for this | Improved reporting → availability and utility of the information — Improved reporting maximises the availability and utility of information from every animal and experiment. — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[11] |
| no type for this | Improved reporting → unnecessary animal use — Improved reporting prevents unnecessary animal use in future. — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[12] |
| no type for this | CONSORT Statement → ARRIVE — ARRIVE was developed using the CONSORT Statement as its foundation. — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | unhoused_relations[13] |
| no type for this | minimum information → accurate critical review — The twenty-item minimum information set permits accurate critical review of what was done and found. — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | unhoused_relations[14] |
| no type for this | Consensus and consultation → guideline development process — Consensus and consultation are described as the corner-stones of guideline development. — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | unhoused_relations[15] |
| no type for this | wider consultation with the scientific community → final version of the checklist — Feedback from wider consultation was incorporated into the final checklist. — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | unhoused_relations[16] |
| no type for this | ARRIVE → comparative experiments — ARRIVE applies to comparative animal experiments and other study designs. — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | unhoused_relations[17] |
| no type for this | ARRIVE → mandatory or absolutely prescriptive — ARRIVE is not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive. — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | unhoused_relations[18] |
| no type for this | ARRIVE → quality assurance — Authors and peer reviewers can use the checklist for quality assurance. — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | unhoused_relations[19] |
| no type for this | reporting omissions → barrier to reaching any useful conclusion — Reporting omissions combine with animal-model limitations to block useful efficacy conclusions. — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | unhoused_relations[20] |
| no type for this | collective efforts → improvements in reporting research using animals — Reporting improvement requires collective effort by authors, editors, reviewers, and funders. — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | unhoused_relations[21] |
| no type for this | ARRIVE → practical resource — ARRIVE provides a practical resource to aid reporting improvements. — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | unhoused_relations[22] |
| limitation | sound underlying science can remain unusable when its publication omits relevant information — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | the reporting survey covered 271 animal-research articles, so its numerical estimates describe that sampled literature — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | most surveyed papers did not report randomisation or blinding, and many did not fully report statistical methods — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | the paper relies on emerging evidence from CONSORT rather than a direct trial of ARRIVE itself — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | ARRIVE specifies minimum information but does not mandate or prescribe the structure of reporting — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | limitations[4] |
| limitation | ARRIVE applies broadly across animal bioscience, but the meaning of laboratory animal is confined to experimental laboratory or formal test settings — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | limitations[5] |
| limitation | reporting omissions and limitations of animal models can jointly prevent systematic reviews from reaching useful efficacy conclusions — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | limitations[6] |
| limitation | improving animal-research reporting has no single simple or rapid solution and requires coordinated stakeholder effort — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | limitations[7] |
Concepts
terms this paper carries, each with the sentence it was cut from — the layer that joins one paper to another. Terms with no quote yet are on CONCEPTS.html.
| concept | biomedical research — not defined in this paper's own words; research whose reporting quality affects scientific, clinical, ethical, and economic use — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | concepts[0] |
| concept | reporting of biomedical research — not defined in this paper's own words; communication of the methods, results, and context of biomedical studies — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | concepts[1] |
| concept | incomplete reporting — not defined in this paper's own words; omission of relevant information from publications — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | concepts[2] |
| concept | limited value — not defined in this paper's own words; reduced usefulness of publications for policy and scientific or clinical practice — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | concepts[3] |
| concept | poor reporting — not defined in this paper's own words; reporting that leaves publications unusable or difficult to interpret — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | concepts[4] |
| concept | animal research — not defined in this paper's own words; bioscience research involving animals — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | concepts[5] |
| concept | research methods — not defined in this paper's own words; procedures whose adequate description is necessary for scrutiny and repetition — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | concepts[6] |
| concept | scientific, ethical, and economic implications — not defined in this paper's own words; the broad consequences of inadequate methods and results reporting — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | concepts[7] |
| concept | hypothesis or objective — not defined in this paper's own words; the study purpose that many assessed articles omitted — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | concepts[8] |
| concept | number and characteristics of the animals used — not defined in this paper's own words; sample size plus species, strain, sex, and age or weight — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | concepts[9] |
| concept | randomisation — not defined in this paper's own words; allocation procedure used to reduce selection bias — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | concepts[10] |
| concept | blinding — not defined in this paper's own words; masking used to reduce bias in animal selection and outcome assessment — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | concepts[11] |
| concept | statistical methods — not defined in this paper's own words; quantitative methods that should be fully described — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | concepts[12] |
| concept | measure of precision or variability — not defined in this paper's own words; uncertainty information accompanying statistical results — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | concepts[13] |
| concept | peer review process — not defined in this paper's own words; scientific scrutiny requiring complete methods and key results — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | concepts[14] |
| concept | quality control — not defined in this paper's own words; the publication role traditionally performed by peer scrutiny — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | concepts[15] |
| concept | level of detail of methods — not defined in this paper's own words; completeness of reported experimental procedure — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | concepts[16] |
| concept | presentation of key results — not defined in this paper's own words; communication of the main findings needed for assessment — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | concepts[17] |
| concept | knowledge base — not defined in this paper's own words; published information used to inform future research — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | concepts[18] |
| concept | biological relevance — not defined in this paper's own words; the substantive meaning of a study that readers should be able to assess — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | concepts[19] |
| concept | reliability and validity of the findings — not defined in this paper's own words; trustworthiness of reported results — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | concepts[20] |
| concept | experiment to be repeated — not defined in this paper's own words; replication enabled by sufficient procedural information — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | concepts[21] |
| concept | reporting guidelines — not defined in this paper's own words; structured guidance about information that research articles should provide — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | concepts[22] |
| concept | CONSORT Statement — not defined in this paper's own words; reporting guideline for randomised controlled clinical trials — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | concepts[23] |
| concept | randomised controlled clinical trials — not defined in this paper's own words; clinical-trial design addressed by CONSORT — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | concepts[24] |
| concept | quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials — not defined in this paper's own words; reporting outcome improved after CONSORT support — “Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .” | concepts[25] |
| concept | health research — not defined in this paper's own words; the family of research types covered by many reporting guidelines — “Following CONSORT, many other guidelines have been developed—there are currently more than 90 available for reporting different types of health research, most of which have been published in the last ten years (see http://www.equator-network.org and references [30] , [31] ). Guidelines have also been developed to improve the reporting of other specific bioscience research areas including metabolomics and gene expression studies [32] – [37] . Several organisations support the case for improved reporting and recommend the use of reporting guidelines, including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Council of Science Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, and the Nuffield Council for Bioethics [38] – [41] .” | concepts[26] |
| concept | bioscience research areas — not defined in this paper's own words; domains such as metabolomics and gene-expression studies — “Following CONSORT, many other guidelines have been developed—there are currently more than 90 available for reporting different types of health research, most of which have been published in the last ten years (see http://www.equator-network.org and references [30] , [31] ). Guidelines have also been developed to improve the reporting of other specific bioscience research areas including metabolomics and gene expression studies [32] – [37] . Several organisations support the case for improved reporting and recommend the use of reporting guidelines, including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Council of Science Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, and the Nuffield Council for Bioethics [38] – [41] .” | concepts[27] |
| concept | number of animals used — not defined in this paper's own words; the animal sample count required to assess and reanalyse findings — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | concepts[28] |
| concept | biological and statistical significance — not defined in this paper's own words; substantive and quantitative importance assessed from adequate reporting — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | concepts[29] |
| concept | data reanalysed — not defined in this paper's own words; secondary analysis made possible by adequate information — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | concepts[30] |
| concept | experimental methods — not defined in this paper's own words; procedures that must be described for repetition — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | concepts[31] |
| concept | availability and utility of the information — not defined in this paper's own words; accessibility and usefulness of knowledge gained from animals and experiments — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | concepts[32] |
| concept | unnecessary animal use — not defined in this paper's own words; duplicative or avoidable animal experimentation — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | concepts[33] |
| concept | guidelines for reporting animal research — not defined in this paper's own words; the reporting intervention produced by the authors — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | concepts[34] |
| concept | ARRIVE — not defined in this paper's own words; the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments guidelines — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | concepts[35] |
| concept | Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments — not defined in this paper's own words; the expanded name of ARRIVE — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | concepts[36] |
| concept | checklist of 20 items — not defined in this paper's own words; the minimum reporting information specified by ARRIVE — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | concepts[37] |
| concept | minimum information — not defined in this paper's own words; the smallest complete information set expected in animal-research publications — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | concepts[38] |
| concept | specific characteristics of animals used — species, strain, sex, and genetic background — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | concepts[39] |
| concept | housing and husbandry — not defined in this paper's own words; animal living and care conditions required in reports — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | concepts[40] |
| concept | experimental, statistical, and analytical methods — not defined in this paper's own words; procedural details required by ARRIVE — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | concepts[41] |
| concept | high-quality, comprehensive reporting — not defined in this paper's own words; complete reporting that supports accurate critical review — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | concepts[42] |
| concept | accurate critical review — not defined in this paper's own words; assessment of what was done and found — “The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.” | concepts[43] |
| concept | Consensus and consultation — not defined in this paper's own words; the foundation of the guideline-development approach — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | concepts[44] |
| concept | guideline development process — not defined in this paper's own words; the process through which reporting guidance is created — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | concepts[45] |
| concept | expert working group — not defined in this paper's own words; multidisciplinary group agreeing the scope and content of draft guidance — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | concepts[46] |
| concept | draft set of guidelines — not defined in this paper's own words; the proposal taken into wider consultation — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | concepts[47] |
| concept | wider consultation with the scientific community — not defined in this paper's own words; community review used to refine the draft checklist — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | concepts[48] |
| concept | final version of the checklist — not defined in this paper's own words; the checklist after incorporating consultation feedback — “Consensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.” | concepts[49] |
| concept | laboratory animals — not defined in this paper's own words; animals undergoing experimental procedures in laboratories or formal tests — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | concepts[50] |
| concept | comparative experiments — not defined in this paper's own words; one study-design class to which ARRIVE applies — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | concepts[51] |
| concept | other study designs — not defined in this paper's own words; non-comparative animal-research designs also covered by ARRIVE principles — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | concepts[52] |
| concept | mandatory or absolutely prescriptive — not defined in this paper's own words; a status explicitly disclaimed for ARRIVE — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | concepts[53] |
| concept | structure of reporting — not defined in this paper's own words; article organization that ARRIVE does not standardise or formalise — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | concepts[54] |
| concept | quality assurance — not defined in this paper's own words; peer-review use of the checklist to check completeness and transparency — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | concepts[55] |
| concept | completeness and transparency — not defined in this paper's own words; the reporting qualities the checklist is designed to ensure — “The ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.” | concepts[56] |
| concept | output from research using animals — not defined in this paper's own words; usable information derived from animal studies — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | concepts[57] |
| concept | design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments — not defined in this paper's own words; the research components that publications should report — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | concepts[58] |
| concept | systematic reviews of animal research — not defined in this paper's own words; evidence syntheses used to assess drugs and interventions in animal models — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | concepts[59] |
| concept | Well-designed and -reported animal studies — not defined in this paper's own words; the individual studies from which systematic reviews are built — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | concepts[60] |
| concept | essential building blocks — not defined in this paper's own words; the role of well-designed and reported studies in systematic reviews — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | concepts[61] |
| concept | reporting omissions — not defined in this paper's own words; missing information that blocks useful synthesis conclusions — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | concepts[62] |
| concept | limitations of the animal models — not defined in this paper's own words; model constraints that combine with omissions to limit synthesis — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | concepts[63] |
| concept | barrier to reaching any useful conclusion — not defined in this paper's own words; the obstacle to judging intervention efficacy — “These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .” | concepts[64] |
| concept | collective efforts — not defined in this paper's own words; coordinated work by authors, editors, reviewers, and funders — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | concepts[65] |
| concept | practical resource — not defined in this paper's own words; ARRIVE's role in supporting reporting improvements — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | concepts[66] |
| concept | journal Instructions to Authors — not defined in this paper's own words; publisher instructions through which ARRIVE is endorsed — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | concepts[67] |
| concept | Failure to describe research methods — not defined in this paper's own words; one form of incomplete reporting with broad research implications — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | concepts[68] |
| concept | Improved reporting — not defined in this paper's own words; more complete communication of animal-research methods and results — “Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .” | concepts[69] |
| concept | bias in animal selection — not defined in this paper's own words; selection bias that randomisation is intended to reduce — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | concepts[70] |
| concept | outcome assessment — not defined in this paper's own words; evaluation of animal-study outcomes that blinding is intended to protect — “Failure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the 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] .” | concepts[71] |
| concept | improvements in reporting research using animals — not defined in this paper's own words; the collective objective supported by ARRIVE — “Driving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).” | concepts[72] |
| concept | in-depth critique — not defined in this paper's own words; detailed peer assessment enabled by complete research articles — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | concepts[73] |
| concept | research articles — not defined in this paper's own words; publications expected to contain all relevant study information — “Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.” | concepts[74] |
| concept | waste of financial resources — not defined in this paper's own words; cumulative research waste to which unusable reporting contributes — “In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .” | concepts[75] |
Full text — tagged
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVEterm Guidelines for Reporting Animal Researchterm In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical researchterm is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reportingterm of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited valueterm as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resourcesterm at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reportingterm [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .
Failure to describe research methodsterm and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implicationsterm for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal researchterm, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal researchterm undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objectiveterm of the study, and the number and characteristics of the animals usedterm (i.e., species/strain, sex, and age/weight). Most of the papers surveyed did not report using randomisationterm (87%) or blindingterm (86%) to reduce bias in animal selectionterm and outcome assessmentterm. Only 70% of the publications that used statistical methodsterm fully described them and presented the results with a measure of precision or variabilityterm [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] .
Good Reporting Is Essential for Peer Review and to Inform Future Research Scrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality controlterm” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methodsterm and the presentation of key resultsterm, is crucial to the peer review processterm and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge baseterm that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articlesterm include all relevant information to allow in-depth critiqueterm, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevanceterm of the study and the reliability and validity of the findingsterm. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeatedterm [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.
Using Reporting Guidelinesterm Measurably Improves the Quality of Reporting Evidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research articleterm. The CONSORT Statementterm for randomised controlled clinical trialsterm was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trialsterm [28] , [29] .
Following CONSORT, many other guidelines have been developed—there are currently more than 90 available for reporting different types of health researchterm, most of which have been published in the last ten years (see http://www.equator-network.org and references [30] , [31] ). Guidelines have also been developed to improve the reporting of other specific bioscience research areasterm including metabolomics and gene expression studies [32] – [37] . Several organisations support the case for improved reportingterm and recommend the use of reporting guidelinesterm, including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Council of Science Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, and the Nuffield Council for Bioethics [38] – [41] .
Improving the Reporting of Animal Experiments—The ARRIVEterm Guidelines Most bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal researchterm [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals usedterm anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significanceterm of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysedterm, and is also necessary if the experimental methodsterm are to be repeated. Improved reportingterm of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the informationterm gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal useterm in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal researchterm. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVEterm (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experimentsterm), have been developed using the CONSORT Statementterm as their foundation [24] , [25] .
The ARRIVEterm guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 itemsterm describing the minimum informationterm that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals usedterm (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandryterm; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methodsterm (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisationterm and blindingterm). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reportingterm to allow an accurate critical reviewterm of what was done and what was found.
Consensus and consultationterm are the corner-stones of the guideline development processterm [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVEterm guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working groupterm, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animalsterm , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelinesterm that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific communityterm, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklistterm. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.
Funding bodies consulted.
The ARRIVEterm guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animalsterm, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experimentsterm but also to other study designsterm. Laboratory animalterm refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptiveterm, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reportingterm. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assuranceterm, to ensure completeness and transparencyterm.
Animal Researchterm: Reporting In Vivo experiments: The ARRIVEterm guidelines.
Improved Reportingterm Will Maximise the Output of Published Research These guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animalsterm by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experimentsterm. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal researchterm that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studiesterm are the essential building blocksterm from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissionsterm, in addition to the limitations of the animal modelsterm used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusionterm about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .
Driving improvements in reporting research using animalsterm will require the collective effortsterm of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVEterm guidelines provide a practical resourceterm to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authorsterm subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVEterm ).