Explanation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0—Reporting Animal Research and In Vivo Experiments (Ⅰ)

doi:10.12300/j.issn.1674-5817.2023.043

Abstract

Abstract:

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research results is a major challenge. Researchers reporting their research process transparently and accurately can help readers evaluate the reliability of the research results and further explore the experiment by repeating it or building upon its findings. The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, released in 2019 by the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), provide a checklist applicable to any in vivo animal research report. These guidelines aim to improve the standardization of experimental design, implementation, and reporting, as well as the reliability, repeatability, and clinical translatability of animal experimental results. The use of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines not only enriches the details of animal experimental research reports, ensuring that information on animal experimental results is fully evaluated and utilized, but also enables readers to understand the content expressed by the author accurately and clearly, promoting the transparency and integrity of the fundamental research review process. At present, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines have been widely adopted by international biomedical journals. this article is a Chinese translation based on the best practices of international journals following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international journals, specifically for the complete interpretation of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines published in the PLoS Biology journal in 2020 (original text can be found at https://arriveguidelines.org). The first part of the article includes the preface and the "Key 10" section, which covers "study design" "sample size" and "inclusion and exclusion criteria". Its aim is to promote the full understanding and use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines by domestic researchers, enhance the standardization of experimental animal research and reporting, and promote the high-quality development of experimental animal technology and comparative medicine research in China.

Key words: Animal experiment, ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, ARRIVE essential 10, Study design, Sample size, Inclusion and exclusion criteria

CLC Number:

R-332

Jian WANG, Jin LU, Zhengwen MA, Guoyuan CHEN, Xiao LU, Yu BAI, Xiaoyu LIU, Xuancheng LU, Jing GAO, Yao LI, Wanyong Pang. Explanation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0—Reporting Animal Research and In Vivo Experiments (Ⅰ)[J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2023, 43(2): 213-224.

Figures/Tables 4

References 61

1	KILKENNY C, PARSONS N, KADYSZEWSKI E, et al. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals[J]. PLoS One, 2009, 4(11): e7824. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007824 .
2	FLÓREZ-VARGAS O, BRASS A, KARYSTIANIS G, et al. Bias in the reporting of sex and age in biomedical research on mouse models[J]. eLife, 2016, 5: e13615. DOI: 10.7554/eLife. 13615 .
3	WEISSGERBER T L, GARCIA-VALENCIA O, GAROVIC V D, et al. Why we need to report more than 'Data were Analyzed by t-tests or ANOVA'[J]. eLife, 2018, 7: e36163. DOI: 10.7554/eLife. 36163 .
4	MACLEOD M R, LAWSON MCLEAN A, KYRIAKOPOULOU A, et al. Correction: risk of bias in reports of in vivo research: a focus for improvement[J]. PLoS Biol, 2015, 13(11): e1002301. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002301 .
5	KILKENNY C, BROWNE W J, CUTHILL I C, et al. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research[J]. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 2012, 20(4):256-260. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2021.02.010 .
6	BAKER D, LIDSTER K, SOTTOMAYOR A, et al. Two years later: journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting standards for pre-clinical animal studies[J]. PLoS Biol, 2014, 12(1): e1001756. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001756 .
7	GULIN J E N, ROCCO D M, GARCÍA-BOURNISSEN F. Quality of reporting and adherence to ARRIVE guidelines in animal studies for chagas disease preclinical drug research: a systematic review[J]. PLoS Negl Trop Dis, 2015, 9(11): e0004194. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004194 .
8	AVEY M T, MOHER D, SULLIVAN K J, et al. The devil is in the details: incomplete reporting in preclinical animal research[J]. PLoS One, 2016, 11(11): e0166733. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166733 .
9	REICHLIN T S, VOGT L, WÜRBEL H. The researchers' view of scientific rigor-survey on the conduct and reporting of in vivo research[J]. PLoS One, 2016, 11(12): e0165999. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165999 .
10	LEUNG V, ROUSSEAU-BLASS F, BEAUCHAMP G, et al. ARRIVE has not ARRIVEd: support for the ARRIVE (Animal Research: reporting of in vivo Experiments) guidelines does not improve the reporting quality of papers in animal welfare, analgesia or anesthesia[J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(5): e0197882. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197882 .
11	HAIR K, MACLEOD M R, SENA E S, et al. A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus)[J]. Res Integr Peer Rev, 2019, 4:12. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3 .
12	MCGRATH J C, LILLEY E. Implementing guidelines on reporting research using animals (ARRIVE etc.): new requirements for publication in BJP[J]. Br J Pharmacol, 2015, 172(13):3189-3193. DOI: 10.1111/bph.12955 .
13	PERCIE DU SERT N, HURST V, AHLUWALIA A, et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research[J]. BMC Vet Res, 2020,16(1):242. DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02451-y .
14	DU SERT N P, AHLUWALIA A, ALAM S, et al. Reporting animal research: explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0[J]. PLoS Biol, 2020, 18(7): e3000411. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411 .
15	张俊彦, 刘晓宇, 李垚, 等. 动物实验研究报告的国际指南ARRIVE 2.0介绍及期刊实施计划[J]. 实验动物与比较医学, 2023, 43(1): 86-94.DOI:10.12300/j.issn.1674-5817.2023.014 .
	ZHANG J Y, LIU X Y, LI Y, et al. Introduction to the international guide for animal research reporting ARRIVE 2.0, and its implementation plan in the journal[J]. Lab Anim Comp Med, 2023, 43(1): 86-94.DOI:10.12300/j.issn.1674-5817.2023.014 .
16	FESTING M F W, ALTMAN D G. Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals[J]. ILAR J, 2002, 43(4):244-258. DOI: 10.1093/ilar.43.4.244 .
17	BATE S T, CLARK R A. The design and statistical analysis of animal experiments[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
18	RUXTON G D, COLEGRAVE N. Experimental design for the life sciences[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
19	PERCIE DU SERT N, BAMSEY I, BATE S T, et al. The experimental design assistant[J]. PLoS Biol, 2017, 15(9): e2003779. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003779 .
20	The BMJ Scientific misconduct[EB/OL]. [2020-1-10]. https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resourcesauthors/forms-policies-and-checklists/scientific-misconduct.
21	NGUYEN T T, BAZZOLI C, MENTRÉ F. Design evaluation and optimisation in crossover pharmacokinetic studies analysed by nonlinear mixed effects models[J]. Stat Med, 2012, 31(11-12):1043-1058. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4390 .
22	HILL D, CHEN L P, SNAAR-JAGALSKA E, et al. Embryonic zebrafish xenograft assay of human cancer metastasis[J]. F1000Research, 2018, 7:1682. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.16659.2 .
23	BURDGE G C, LILLYCROP K A, JACKSON A A, et al. The nature of the growth pattern and of the metabolic response to fasting in the rat are dependent upon the dietary protein and folic acid intakes of their pregnant dams and post-weaning fat consumption[J]. Br J Nutr, 2008, 99(3):540-549. DOI: 10.1017/S0007114507815819 .
24	LAZIC S E, CLARKE-WILLIAMS C J, MUNAFÒ M R. What exactly is 'N' in cell culture and animal experiments?[J]. PLoS Biol, 2018, 16(4): e2005282. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282 .
25	NC3Rs. Experimental unit 2015 [EB/OL]. [2019-3-21]. https://eda.nc3rs.org.uk/experimental-designunit.
26	LAZIC S E. The problem of pseudoreplication in neuroscientific studies: is it affecting your analysis?[J]. BMC Neurosci, 2010, 11:5. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2202-11-5 .
27	HURLBERT S H. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments[J]. Ecol Monogr, 1984, 54(2):187-211. DOI: 10.2307/1942661 .
28	KWAN S T C, KING J H, GRENIER J K, et al. Maternal choline supplementation during normal murine pregnancy alters the placental epigenome: results of an exploratory study[J]. Nutrients, 2018, 10(4):417. DOI: 10.3390/nu10040417 .
29	KARP N A, MASON J, BEAUDET A L, et al. Prevalence of sexual dimorphism in mammalian phenotypic traits[J]. Nat Commun, 2017, 8:15475. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15475 .
30	RIBEIRO F, VASQUEZ L A, FERNANDES J B K, et al. Feeding level and frequency for freshwater angelfish[J]. R Bras Zootec, 2012, 41(6):1550-1554. DOI: 10.1590/S1516-35982012-000600033 .
31	GRASSELLI G, ROSSI S, MUSELLA A, et al. Abnormal NMDA receptor function exacerbates experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis[J]. Br J Pharmacol, 2013, 168(2):502-517. DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.02178.x .
32	LUDIVINE S, BREGER, . Influence of chronic L-DOPA treatment on immune response following allogeneic and xenogeneic graft in a rat model of Parkinson's disease[J]. Brain Behav Immun, 2017, 61:155-164. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi. 2016. 11.014 .
33	VAHIDY F, SCHÄBITZ W R, FISHER M, et al. Reporting standards for preclinical studies of stroke therapy[J]. Stroke, 2016, 47(10):2435-2438. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.013643 .
34	MUHLHAUSLER B S, BLOOMFIELD F H, GILLMAN M W. Whole animal experiments should be more like human randomized controlled trials[J]. PLoS Biol, 2013, 11(2): e1001481. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001481 .
35	JENNIONS M D, MØLLER A P. A survey of the statistical power of research in behavioral ecology and animal behavior[J]. Behav Ecol, 2003, 14(3):438-445. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/14.3.438 .
36	BUTTON K S, IOANNIDIS J P A, MOKRYSZ C, et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience[J]. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2013, 14(5):365-376. DOI: 10.1038/nrn3475 .
37	WÜRBEL H. More than 3Rs: the importance of scientific validity for harm-benefit analysis of animal research[J]. Lab Anim (NY), 2017, 46(4):164-166. DOI: 10.1038/laban.1220 .
38	TEAM R. R: a language and environment for statistical computing[M]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017.
39	PENG C Y, LONG H Y, ABACI S. Power analysis software for educational researchers[J]. J Exp Educ, 2012, 80:113-136. DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2011.647115 .
40	CHARAN J, KANTHARIA N D. How to calculate sample size in animal studies?[J]. J Pharmacol Pharmacother, 2013, 4(4):303-306. DOI: 10.4103/0976-500X.119726 .
41	FESTING M F. On determining sample size in experiments involving laboratory animals[J]. Lab Anim, 2018, 52(4):341-350. DOI: 10.1177/0023677217738268 .
42	FREEDMAN L S. An analysis of the controversy over classical one-sided tests[J]. Clin Trials, 2008, 5(6):635-640. DOI: 10.1177/1740774508098590 .
43	RUXTON G D, NEUHÄUSER M. When should we use one-tailed hypothesis testing?[J]. Methods Ecol Evol, 2010, 1(2):114-117. DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00014x .
44	REYNOLDS P S. When power calculations won't do: Fermi approximation of animal numbers[J]. Lab Anim (NY), 2019, 48(9):249-253. DOI: 10.1038/s41684-019-0370-2 .
45	Bate ST. How to decide your sample size when the power calculation is not straightforward [EB/OL]. [2018-8-2]. https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/news/howdecide-your-sample-size-when-power-calculation-not-straightforward.
46	BUSTAMANTE R, DAZA M A, CANFRÁN S, et al. Comparison of the postoperative analgesic effects of cimicoxib, buprenorphine and their combination in healthy dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy[J]. Vet Anaesth Analg, 2018, 45(4):545-556. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaa.2018.01.003 .
47	SPIN J, OLIVEIRA G, SPIN-NETO R, et al. Histomorphometric evaluation of the association between bioglass and lyophilized bovine bone in the treatment of critical bone defects created on rat calvaria: a pilot study[J]. Rev Odontol UNESP, 2015, 44(1):37-43. DOI: 10.1590/1807-2577.1020 .
48	RICE A S C, MORLAND R, HUANG W, et al. Transparency in the reporting of in vivo pre-clinical pain research: The relevance and implications of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines[J].Scand J Pain, 2013, 4(2):58-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.sjpain.2013.02.002 .
49	SALKIND N J. Encyclopedia of research design[M]. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications, 2010.
50	WORKMAN P, ABOAGYE E O, BALKWILL F, et al. Guidelines for the welfare and use of animals in cancer research[J]. Br J Cancer, 2010, 102(11):1555-1577. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605642 .
51	SENA E S, JEFFREYS A L, COX S F, et al. The benefit of hypothermia in experimental ischemic stroke is not affected by pethidine[J]. Int J Stroke, 2013, 8(3):180-185. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00834.x .
52	KAFKAFI N, AGASSI J, CHESLER E J, et al. Reproducibility and replicability of rodent phenotyping in preclinical studies[J]. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2018, 87:218-232. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.01.003 .
53	SCOTT S, KRANZ J E, COLE J, et al. Design, power, and interpretation of studies in the standard murine model of ALS[J]. Amyotroph Lateral Scler, 2008, 9(1):4-15. DOI: 10.1080/17482960701856300 .
54	KANG H. The prevention and handling of the missing data[J]. Korean J Anesthesiol, 2013, 64(5):402-406. DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2013.64.5.402 .
55	DAVID ALLISON P. Missing data[M]. Thousand Oaks, Calif:Sage Publications, 2002.
56	JAKOBSEN J C, GLUUD C, WETTERSLEV J, et al. When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials - a practical guide with flowcharts[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2017, 17(1):162. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1 .
57	HOLMAN C, PIPER S K, GRITTNER U, et al. Where have all the rodents gone? the effects of attrition in experimental research on cancer and stroke[J]. PLoS Biol, 2016, 14(1): e1002331. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002331 .
58	GENTHER-SCHROEDER O N, BRANINE M E, HANSEN S L. Effects of increasing supplemental dietary Zn concentration on growth performance and carcass characteristics in finishing steers fed ractopamine hydrochloride[J]. J Anim Sci, 2018, 96(5):1903-1913. DOI: 10.1093/jas/sky094 .
59	CASTIGLIONI L, COLAZZO F, FONTANA L, et al. Evaluation of left ventricle function by regional fractional area change (RFAC) in a mouse model of myocardial infarction secondary to valsartan treatment[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(8):e0135778. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0135778 .
60	BRENT L J N, HEILBRONNER S R, HORVATH J E, et al. Genetic origins of social networks in rhesus macaques[J]. Sci Rep, 2013, 3:1042. DOI: 10.1038/srep01042 .
61	GOUVEIA K, HURST J L. Optimising reliability of mouse performance in behavioural testing: the major role of non-aversive handling[J]. Sci Rep, 2017, 7:44999. DOI: 10.1038/srep44999 .

[1]	Zhengwen MA, Xiaying LI, Xiaoyu LIU, Yao LI, Jian WANG, Jin LU, Guoyuan CHEN, Xiao LU, Yu BAI, Xuancheng LU, Yonggang LIU, Wanyong PANG, Yufeng TAO. Interpretation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0—Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (V) [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2024, 44(1): 105-114.
[2]	Jinhuan MIAO, Xia XU, Lu ZHOU, Haiyan CHENG, Yan HE. Visual Analysis of Animal Experiments on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) Nursing Technology Based on VOSviewer [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2023, 43(6): 626-635.
[3]	Xiaying LI, Yonglu TIAN, Xiaoyu LIU, Xuancheng LU, Guoyuan CHEN, Xiao LU, Yu BAI, Jing GAO, Yao LI, Yusheng WEI, Wanyong PANG, Yufeng TAO. Explanation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0—Reporting Animal Research and In Vivo Experiments (Ⅳ) [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2023, 43(6): 659-668.
[4]	Shuo WANG, Yunhui LÜ, Xiaokang WANG, Zhenhao ZHANG, Yongchun CUI. Construction and Verification of Quality Evaluation Indicator System for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Animal Experimental Platform [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2023, 43(6): 604-611.
[5]	Xiaoyu LIU, Xuancheng LU, Xiaomeng SHI, Yuzhou ZHANG, Chao LÜ, Guoyuan CHEN, Xiao LU, Yu BAI, Jing GAO, Yao LI, Yonggang LIU, Yufeng TAO, Wanyong PANG. Explanation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0—Reporting Animal Research and In Vivo Experiments (Ⅲ) [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2023, 43(4): 446-456.
[6]	Guoyuan CHEN, Xiao LU, Yu BAI, Lingzhi YU, Ying QIAO, Jian WANG, Jin LU, Xiaoyu LIU, Xuancheng LU, Jing GAO, Yao LI, Wanyong PANG. Explanation and Elaboration of the ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0—Reporting Animal Research and In Vivo Experiments (Ⅱ) [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2023, 43(3): 323-331.
[7]	Xiangrong DING, Shurui HUO, Jiejie DAI. Research Progress on Influenza A Virus and Nervous System Disease of Human and Experimental Animals [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2023, 43(2): 180-185.
[8]	Junyan ZHANG, Xiaoyu LIU, Yao LI, Guoyuan CHEN, Xiao LU, Yu BAI, Xuancheng LU, Wanyong PANG, Baojin WU. Introduction to the International Guide for Animal Research Reporting ARRIVE 2.0, and Its Implementation Plan in the Journal [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2023, 43(1): 86-94.
[9]	Xiangmei LIU, Zhongchun MA, Hongkun FU, Feng GAO, Yufeng TAO. Discussion on Expression of Laboratory Accreditation Scope in the Field of Toxicology Testing [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2022, 42(6): 526-530.
[10]	Xiaokang WANG, Ruojin ZHAO, Yunhui LÜ, Guangxin YUE, Shangyu LIU, Ting HE, Peng PENG, Liang MENG, Jubo LI, Baojie ZHANG, Chen SHEN, Yongchun CUI, Xin WANG. A Novel Model for in-vivo Training of Postgraduates on Cardiac Electrical Conduction System Mapping Skills [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2022, 42(5): 466-471.
[11]	Yufei LENG, Wenjing LU, Fengwei WANG. Thinking of Teaching Reform in the Animal Experiment of Operative Surgery in Medical School [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2022, 42(5): 472-476.
[12]	YU Yixiang, CAO Shanshan, FENG Yi, LI Jiarui, WANG Rong. Improvement and Effect Evaluation on Method of Tracheal Instillation in Rats [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2021, 41(6): 543-546.
[13]	CHEN Xiaojuan, LI Wei, WANG Lie. Exploration on Informatization of Laboratory Animal Management Process in Colleges and Universities: The Case of Zhejiang University [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2021, 41(6): 554-558.
[14]	ZHOU Bin, ZHAO Yong, WANG Yabing, LIU Jihong. Analysis on Air Distribution by Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation in Two Types of Laboratory Animal Barrier Facilities [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2021, 41(3): 252-258.
[15]	CHEN Guoyuan, KANG Kang, LI Xiaoxian, JI Wentao, ZHANG Jinmei, FENG Yanhua, TIAN Qianying, WU Baojin. Application of Experimental Material Inspection in Quality Control of SPF Mice [J]. Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine, 2021, 41(1): 61-65.