bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018 · 23 citations · 14 references
LawAnimal SciencesEvidence-based PracticeExperimental DesignRegulatory ComplianceClinical Trial Protocol ReviewClinical TrialsCompliance ReportingProtocol ComplianceBest Practice StandardChecklist EffectivenessComplianceRegulatory Compliance ChecklistsStandard Of Practice
Abstract The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines are widely endorsed but compliance is limited. We sought to determine whether journal-requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist improves full compliance with the guidelines. In a randomised controlled trial, manuscripts reporting in vivo animal research submitted to PLOS ONE (March-June 2015) were allocated to either requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist or current standard practice. We measured the change in proportion of manuscripts meeting all ARRIVE guideline checklist items between groups. We randomised 1,689 manuscripts, 1,269 were sent for peer review and 762 accepted for publication. The request to complete an ARRIVE checklist had no effect on full compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines. Details of animal husbandry (ARRIVE sub-item 9a) was the only item to show improved reporting, from 52.1% to 74.1% (X 2 =34.0, df=1, p=2.1×10 −7 ). These results suggest that other approaches are required to secure greater implementation of the ARRIVE guidelines.
14
A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research
Story C. Landis, Susan Amara, Khusru Asadullah et al. · Nature · 2012 · 1.2K citations · Full text