Animals In Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments Research Articles

PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: explanation and elaboration.

Laws and ethics require that before conducting human clinical trials, a new material, device or drug may have to undergo testing in animals in order to minimize health risks to humans, unless suitable supporting grandfather data already exist. The Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the specialty of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles using a validated consensus-based methodology. Implementation of the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will reduce potential sources of bias and thus improve the quality, accuracy, reproducibility, completeness and transparency of reports describing animal studies in Endodontology. The PRIASE 2021 guidelines consist of a checklist with 11 domains and 43 individual items and a flowchart. The aim of the current document is to provide an explanation for each item in the PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart and is supplemented with examples from the literature in order for readers to understand their significance and to provide usage guidance. A link to the PRIASE 2021 explanation and elaboration document and PRIASE 2021 checklist and flowchart is available on the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/priase/).

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials and experimental animal studies for urethroplasty.

To assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials and experimental animal studies examining urethroplasty in reconstructive urological surgery literature. We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify all urethroplasty-related RCTs examining humans as well as animal models. We used the Consolidated Standards ofReportingTrials (CONSORT) and the Animals in Research: Reportingin vivoExperiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to assess reporting quality. Two reviewers performed data abstraction independently and in duplicate. We then generated descriptive statistics including CONSORT (0-25) and ARRIVE (0-20) summary scores using the median and interquartile range. Twenty studies were ultimately included; 14 randomized controlled trials and 6 experimental animal studies. All studies were two-armed, parallel group studies. Median sample sizes (and interquartile range) of the human and animal studies were 48.5 (31.8-53.8) and 18 (15.3-27.5), respectively. The median CONSORT and ARRIVE scores were 10.0 (8.75-12.63) and 7.97 (6.79-8.64), respectively. Human randomized controlled trials did not consistently report the method of allocation concealment (6/14; 42.9%), blinding (2/14; 14.3%), or discuss the generalizability of the results (6/14; 42.9%). Animal studies infrequently reported why a given animal model was used (1/6; 16.7%), how they were allocated to groups (0/6; 0%) or what the experimental primary and secondary outcomes were (0/6; 0%). Urethroplasty literature is marked by a paucity of both randomized controlled trials and experimental design animal studies. The existing studies are inconsistently reported and are therefore of uncertain methodological quality.

A systematic evaluation on reporting quality of modern studies on pulmonary heart valve implantation in large animals.

Before new heart valves can be implanted safely in humans, animal experiments have to be performed. These animal experiments have to be clearly designed, analysed and reported to assess the accuracy and importance of the findings. We aimed to provide an overview of the reporting and methodological quality of preclinical heart valve research. We conducted a systematic literature search on biological and mechanical pulmonary valve implantations in large animals. We used the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to score the quality of reporting in each article. We compared the scores before and after the introduction of the ARRIVE guidelines (2010). We screened 348 articles, of which 31 articles were included. The included articles reported a mean of 54.7% adequately scored ARRIVE items (95% confidence interval 52.2-57.3%). We did not identify a difference in reporting quality (54.7% vs 54.8%) between articles published before and after 2010. We found an unclear (lack of description) risk of selection bias, performance bias and detection bias. The reporting quality of studies that implanted bioprosthetic or mechanical valves in the pulmonary position in the large animal model is not on the desired level. The introduction of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010 did not improve the reporting quality in this field of research. Hereby, we want to emphasize the importance of clearly describing the methods and transparently reporting the results in animal experiments. This is of great importance for the safe translation of new heart valves to the clinic. PROSPERO (CRD42019147895).

Levelling the Translational Gap for Animal to Human Efficacy Data

Simple SummaryThe value of animal research has been increasingly debated, owing to high failure rates in drug development. A potential contributor to this situation is the lack of predictivity of animal models of disease. Until recently, most initiatives focused on well-known problems related to the lack of reproducibility and poor reporting standards of animal studies. Only now, more methodologies are becoming available to evaluate how translatable the data from animal models of disease are. We discuss the use and implications of several methods and tools to assess the generalisability of animal data to humans. To analyse the relevance of animal research objectively, we must (1) guarantee the experiments are conducted and reported according to best practices; (2) ensure the selection of animal models is made with a clear and detailed translational rationale behind it. Once these conditions are met, the true value of the use of animals in drug development can be finally attested.Reports of a reproducibility crisis combined with a high attrition rate in the pharmaceutical industry have put animal research increasingly under scrutiny in the past decade. Many researchers and the general public now question whether there is still a justification for conducting animal studies. While criticism of the current modus operandi in preclinical research is certainly warranted, the data on which these discussions are based are often unreliable. Several initiatives to address the internal validity and reporting quality of animal studies (e.g., Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) and Planning Research and Experimental Procedures on Animals: Recommendations for Excellence (PREPARE) guidelines) have been introduced but seldom implemented. As for external validity, progress has been virtually absent. Nonetheless, the selection of optimal animal models of disease may prevent the conducting of clinical trials, based on unreliable preclinical data. Here, we discuss three contributions to tackle the evaluation of the predictive value of animal models of disease themselves. First, we developed the Framework to Identify Models of Disease (FIMD), the first step to standardise the assessment, validation and comparison of disease models. FIMD allows the identification of which aspects of the human disease are replicated in the animals, facilitating the selection of disease models more likely to predict human response. Second, we show an example of how systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide another strategy to discriminate between disease models quantitatively. Third, we explore whether external validity is a factor in animal model selection in the Investigator’s Brochure (IB), and we use the IB-derisk tool to integrate preclinical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data in early clinical development. Through these contributions, we show how we can address external validity to evaluate the translatability and scientific value of animal models in drug development. However, while these methods have potential, it is the extent of their adoption by the scientific community that will define their impact. By promoting and adopting high quality study design and reporting, as well as a thorough assessment of the translatability of drug efficacy of animal models of disease, we will have robust data to challenge and improve the current animal research paradigm.

Sex Specific Determinants in Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Preclinical Studies.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent joint disease that primarily affects about 10% of the world’s population over 60 years old. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the preclinical studies regarding sex differences in OA, with particular attention to the molecular aspect and gene expression, but also to the histopathological aspects. Three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge) were screened for eligible studies. In vitro and in vivo papers written in English, published in the last 11 years (2009–2020) were eligible. Participants were preclinical studies, including cell cultures and animal models of OA, evaluating sex differences. Independent extraction of articles and quality assessments were performed by two authors using predefined data fields and specific tools (Animals in Research Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guideline and Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) tool). Twenty-three studies were included in the review: 4 in vitro studies, 18 in vivo studies, and 1 both in vitro and in vivo study. From in vitro works, sex differences were found in the gene expression of inflammatory molecules, hormonal receptors, and in responsiveness to hormonal stimulation. In vivo research showed a great heterogeneity of animal models mainly focused on the histopathological aspects rather than on the analysis of sex-related molecular mechanisms. This review highlights that many gaps in knowledge still exist; improvementsin the selection and reporting of animal models, the use of advanced in vitro models, and multiomics analyses might contribute to developing a personalized gender-based medicine.

Preclinical Research Reporting in Shock: Room for Improvement.

The ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines were endorsed by the Shock Society in 2012, but to date there has been no systematic evaluation of research reporting quality for Shock. We systematically assessed 100 randomly selected animal-based research articles published between 2014 and 2018 for reporting quality and statistical practice, compared with 40 pre-ARRIVE studies. More than half of surveyed papers omitted verifiable ethical oversight information and basic animal descriptive information. Few papers reported best-practice methods, such as sample size justification (10%), randomization (43%), randomization method (7%), blinding (23%). Only one paper reported effect sizes to interpret study results. Most troubling was inadequate reporting of welfare-related information (anesthesia, analgesia, humane endpoints, euthanasia). Almost a decade after ARRIVE endorsement, our findings show that reporting deficiencies have persisted with little sign of correction. There is a clear need for investigators to increase transparency of research methods reporting, and drastically improve skills in experimental design. Improvement in standards and greater attention paid to reporting will lead to improvement in reproducibility, replicability, and research quality. It is incumbent upon the research community to improve reporting practices; accurate and transparent reporting is integral to producing rigorous and ethical science.

Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology: a development protocol.

The regulated use of animals in endodontic research is often necessary to investigate the biological mechanisms of endodontic diseases and to measure the preclinical efficacy, biocompatibility, toxicology and safety of new treatments, biomaterials, sealers, drugs, disinfectants, irrigants, devices and instruments. Animal testing is most crucial in situations when research on humans is not ethical, practical or has unknown health risks. Currently, there is a wide variability in the quality of manuscripts that report the results of animal studies. Towards the goal of improving the quality of publications, guidelines for preventing disability, pain, and suffering to animals, and enhanced reporting requirements for animal research have been developed. These guidelines are referred to as Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). Henceforth, causing any form of animal suffering for research purposes is not acceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances. The present report describes a protocol for the development of welfare and reporting guidelines for animal studies conducted in the specialty of Endodontology: the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) guidelines. The PRIASE guidelines will be developed by adapting and modifying the ARRIVE guidelines and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publication (CLIP) principles. The development of the new PRIASE guidelines will include a five-step consensus process. An initial draft of the PRIASE guidelines will be developed by a steering committee. Each item in the draft guidelines will then be evaluated by members of a PRIASE Delphi Group (PDG) for its clarity using a dichotomous scale (yes or no) and suitability for its inclusion using a 9-point Likert scale. The online surveys will continue until each item achieves this standard, and a set of items are agreed for further analysis by a PRIASE Face-to-face Consensus Meeting Group (PFCMG). Following the consensus meeting, the steering committee will finalize and confirm the PRIASE guidelines taking into account the responses and comments of the PFCMG. The PRIASE guidelines will be published and disseminated internationally and updated periodically based on feedback from stakeholders.

Ensuring reproducibility and ethics in animal experiments reporting in Korea using the ARRIVE guideline

The aim of this study is to evaluate the reporting quality of animal experiments in Korea using the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guideline developed in 2010 to overcome the reproducibility problem and to encourage compliance with replacement, refinement and reduction of animals in research (3R’s principle). We reviewed 50 papers published by a Korean research group from 2013 to 2016 and scored the conformity with the 20-items ARRIVE guideline. The median conformity score was 39.50%. For more precise evaluation, the 20 items were subdivided into 57 sub-items. Among the sub-items, status of experimental animals, housing and husbandry were described under the average level. Microenvironment sub-items, such as enrichment, bedding material, cage type, number of companions, scored under 10%. Although statistical methods used for the studies were given in most publications (84%), sample size calculation and statistical assumption were rarely described. Most publications mentioned the IACUC approval, but only 8% mentioned welfare-related assessments and interventions, and only 4% mentioned any implications of experimental methods or findings for 3R. We may recommend the revision of the present IACUC proposal to collect more detailed information and improving educational program for animal researchers according to the ARRIVE guideline.

Principles of the 3Rs and ARRIVE Guidelines in Animal Research

The use of animals in research has concerned the general public and thoughtful researchers for a long time. For improved animal welfare and increased research quality, researchers have moral obligations to include the 3Rs. The Three Rs are basic principles of humane experimental technique that were first set out by Russell and Burch in 1959. They are now widely accepted within the international scientific community and in associated legislation and guidelines, as a means of avoiding or reducing animal use and suffering and helping to improve the quality of science. When reporting animal studies, it is recommended that manuscripts conform to the principals of the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, incorporated the 3Rs principal.

Considerations for the design and execution of protocols for animal research and treatment to improve reproducibility and standardization: “DEPART well-prepared and ARRIVE safely”

To review the factors in experimental design that contribute to poor translation of pre-clinical research to therapies for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and how this might be improved. Narrative review of the literature, and evaluation of the different stages of design conduct and analysis of studies using animal models of OA to define specific issues that might reduce quality of evidence and how this can be minimised. Preventing bias and improving experimental rigour and reporting are important modifiable factors to improve translation from pre-clinical animal models to successful clinical trials of therapeutic agents. Despite publication and adoption by many journals of guidelines such as Animals in Research: ReportingIn VivoExperiments (ARRIVE), experimental animal studies published in leading rheumatology journals are still deficient in their reporting. In part, this may be caused by researchers first consulting these guidelinesafterthe completion of experiments, at the time of publication. This review discusses factors that can (1) bias the outcome of experimental studies using animal models of osteoarthritis or (2) alter the quality of evidence for translation. We propose a checklist to consultpriorto starting experiments; in the Design and Execution of Protocols for Animal Research and Treatment (DEPART). Following DEPART during the design phase will enable completion of the ARRIVE checklist at the time of publication, and thus improve the quality of evidence for inclusion of experimental animal research in meta-analyses and systematic reviews: "DEPART well-prepared and ARRIVE safely".

Patient-derived xenograft models of colorectal cancer in pre-clinical research: a systematic review.

AIMSWe sought to objectively assess the internal and external validity of patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models as a platform in pre-clinical research into colorectal cancer (CRC). Metastatic disease is the most common cause of death from CRC, and despite significant research, the results of current combination chemotherapy and targeted therapies have been underwhelming for most of this patient group. One of the key factors limiting the success of translational CRC research is the biologically inaccurate models in which new therapies are developed.METHODSWe used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist and SYRCLE (Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation) guidelines to search Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases up to July 2015 to identify studies involving PDX models of CRC where the model had been validated across multiple parameters. Data was extracted including host mouse strain, engraftment rate, site of engraftment, donor tumour source and development of metastases in the model.RESULTSThirteen articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. There was significant heterogeneity amongst the included studies, but overall the median engraftment rate was high (70%) and PDX models faithfully recapitulated the characteristics of their patient tumours on the microscopic, genetic and functional levels.CONCLUSIONSPDX models of CRC have a reasonable internal validity and a high external validity. Developments in xenografting technology are broadening the applications of the PDX platform. However, the included studies could be improved by standardising reporting standards and closed following the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines.

Adherence to ARRIVE Guidelines in Chinese Journal Reports on Neoplasms in Animals.

BackgroundThe Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines were published in 2010 with the aim of improving the quality of studies involving animals. However, how well Chinese studies involving animal neoplasms adhere to these guidelines has not been assessed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of such experiments published between 2010 and 2012 in Chinese journals with support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.MethodsWe searched the Chinese Science Citation and Chinese Journal Full-Text Databases for articles published between 2010 and 2012 involving neoplasms in animals. The data were extracted into pre-prepared forms. Reporting quality was assessed using the ARRIVE checklist—39 items plus information on blinding.ResultsThree hundred and ninety-six animal studies were included in the analysis: 127 studies published in 2010, 140 studies published in 2011, and 129 studies published in 2012. The range of ARRIVE score is from 12 to 27 with a maximum possible score of 40. Studies published in 2012 (P = 0.012), 2011 (P = 0.015), 2010, July~Dec (P<0.017) had a significantly larger ARRIVE checklist score than those published in Jan.~June, 2010, respectively.ConclusionsExperiments involving neoplasms in animals published in Chinese journals generally have not comprehensively reported the information recommended by the ARRIVE guidelines. We strongly recommend that researchers conducting such studies report this information.

Checklist for reporting and reviewing studies of experimental animal models of multiple sclerosis and related disorders

Animal models of neurodegenerative and inflammatory diseases, have greatly contributed to our understanding of human disorders such as multiple sclerosis (MS). These models play a key role in drug development and have led to novel therapeutic approaches to treat human diseases. Nevertheless, some studies showing efficacy of therapies in animal models have not translated well to the clinic. In part, this disparity can be explained by differences in the biology of animals and humans. Another contributing factor is the quality of execution and reporting of studies, which is the responsibility of the authors. However, the acceptance of these papers depends on the quality of refereeing and editorial proficiency. When reporting animal studies, it is recommended that manuscripts conform to the principals of the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines (Kilkenny et al., 2010). This provides a list of 20 guidelines that should be employed in order to make papers consistent as well as transparent. However, conformation to the ARRIVE guidelines requires significantly more information than current publications often report.We have thus refined the ARRIVE guidelines, incorporated the 3Rs (Reduction, Refinement and Replacement) principals, and specifically adapted them to the reporting of animal models of multiple sclerosis (MS) and related disorders. As an example we have used experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), the most widely used model of MS, since many EAE studies lack evidence of adoption of indicators of quality (Kilkenny et al., 2009; Baker and Amor, 2010; Vesterinen et al., 2010). The guide, reported here, is intended to act as a checklist to aid both authors and referees of manuscripts, just as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines are a compulsory part of reporting clinical trials. Our aim is to improve the conclusions drawn from EAE studies and thus aid better translation to the clinical and treatment of MS. It is thus recommended that this checklist be adhered to for both authors and referees of papers submitted to all relevant journals including the journal Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders.

Publication guidelines for refereeing and reporting on animal use in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis

Experimental Autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) is one of the major pre-clinical models of multiple sclerosis. Use of this model has led to some important observations that has benefited human health, but it must also be said that there are many poor-quality studies using EAE that add little to knowledge or understanding. The lack of quality of clinical trials in humans led to the introduction of publication guidelines that aimed to improve the quality and transparency of studies. Therefore, with a view of doing the same, the ARRIVE (Animals in research: Reporting in vivo experiments) guidelines were developed as a checklist of information required for publication of animal studies. Based on the ARRIVE guidelines, we provide guidance on acceptable data handling and indicate the minimal acceptable standard that should be adhered to when reporting and importantly refereeing all publications relating to EAE. This is designed to constructively improve the quality of published work and reduce the futile use of animals in research.

Improving planning, design, reporting and scientific quality of animal experiments by using the Gold Standard Publication Checklist, in addition to the ARRIVE guidelines

Several studies have demonstrated serious omissions in the way research that use animals is reported. In order to improve the quality of reporting of animal experiments, the Animals in research: reporting in vivo experiments (ARRIVE) Guidelines were published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in August 2010.However, not only the quality of reporting of completed animal studies needs to be improved, but also the design and execution of new experiments. With both these goals in mind, we published the Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) in May 2010, a few months before the ARRIVE guidelines appeared. In this letter, we compare the GSPC checklist with the ARRIVE Guidelines. The GSPC describes certain items in more detail, which makes it both easier to use when designing and conducting an experiment and particularly suitable for making systematic reviews of animal studies more feasible. In order to improve not only the reporting but also the planning, design, execution and thereby, the scientific quality of animal experiments, we strongly recommend to all scientists involved in animal experimentation and to editors of journals publishing animal studies to take a closer look at the contents of both the ARRIVE guidelines and GSPC, and select the set of guidelines which is most appropriate for their particular situation.LINKED ARTICLESTo view the article by Kilkenny et al. visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00872.x. To view the editorial by McGrath et al. visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00873.x