Search

Abstract The Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, along with the updated ARRIVE 2.0, provide a crucial framework for transparent reporting in animal research. These guidelines enhance the quality and reproducibility of studies while supporting animal welfare. However, concerns persist regarding the reporting practices of biomedical researchers in scientific articles related to anesthesia and analgesia despite the endorsement of ARRIVE guidelines, as has been demonstrated in previous descriptive analyses. The current study systematically reviews articles published from 2016 to 2023 that involve rodent orthopedic surgeries. These procedures were selected as our focus given that anesthetics and analgesics are essential for such high impact procedures. We highlight significant reporting gaps, noting that anesthetic and analgesic details were missing in 29.4% and 74.8% of the articles, respectively. Our findings reveal no correlation between reporting completeness and journal impact factors, indicating that this issue generalized across journals. Furthermore, among articles that did report analgesia use, we observed a low prevalence of multimodal analgesia. Overall, this study underscores the urgent need to develop effective strategies to improve reporting of anesthesia and analgesia in animal studies to enhance ethical standards, animal welfare, and the robustness and reproducibility of research.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complication following total arthroplasty. Rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to antibiotics will further increase therapeutic insufficiency. New antibacterial technologies are being developed to prevent PJI. In vivo models are still needed to bridge the translational gap to clinical implementation. Though rabbit models have been used most frequently, there is no consensus about methodology and measured outcomes. The PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases were searched for literature on PJI in rabbit models. Data extraction included bias control, experimental design, and outcome measures of the NZW rabbit models in the articles. A total of 60 articles were included in this systematic literature review. The articles were divided into six groups based on the PJI intervention: no intervention used (21%), revision surgery (14%), prevention with only antibiotics (21%), prevention with surface modifications (7%), prevention with coatings (23%), and others (14%). Despite the current availability of guidelines and recommendations regarding experimental design, bias control, and outcome measures, many articles neglect to report on these matters. Ultimately, this analysis aims to assist researchers in determining suitable clinically relevant methodologies and outcome measures for in vivo PJI models using NZW rabbits to test new antimicrobial technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines were introduced to improve the reporting of animal studies. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting adherence of orthodontic speciality animal studies in relation to ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. Associations between the reporting and study characteristics were explored. Materials and method An electronic database search was undertaken using Medline via PubMed (www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) to identify studies meeting the eligibility criteria published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions for the responses to each checklist item were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per ARRIVE item were calculated. A sum score was calculated by adding the responses (0 = not reported, 1 = inadequate reporting, 2 = adequate reporting) per item and sub-questions. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and study characteristics (year of publication, continent of authorship, type of centre, and number of authors) was performed. Results Three hundred and eighty-four studies were analysed. Variability in the adequate reporting of the ARRIVE 2.0 guideline items was evident. In particular, in 32% of studies, there was a lack of reporting of the priori sample size calculation. Overall, the mean reporting score for the sample was 57.9 (SD 6.7 and range 34–74). There were no associations between score and study characteristics except for a weak association for year of publication with a small improvement over time (each additional year). Conclusions The reporting of animal studies relevant to the speciality of orthodontics is sub-optimal in relation to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. There was a tendency for the non-reporting of items pertaining to study sample size, eligibility, methods to reduce bias and interpretation/scientific implications. Greater awareness and reporting adherence to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines are required to reduce research waste involving animal models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dental implants and bone augmentation are among dentistry's most prevalent surgical treatments; hence, many dental implant surfaces and bone grafts have been researched to improve bone response. Such new materials were radiologically, histologically, and histomorphometrically evaluated on animals before being used on humans. As a result, several studies used animals to evaluate novel implant technologies, biocompatibility, surgical techniques, and osseointegration strategies, as preclinical research on animal models is essential to evaluate bioactive principles (on cells, compounds, and implants) that can act through multiple mechanisms and to predict animal behavior, which is difficult to predict from in vitro studies alone. In this study, we critically reviewed all research on different animal models investigating the osseointegration degree of new implant surfaces, reporting different species used in the osseointegration research over the last 30 years. Moreover, this is the first study to summarize reviews on the main animal models used in the translational research of osseointegration, including the advantages and limitations of each model and determining the ideal location for investigating osseointegration in small and large animal models. Overall, each model has advantages and disadvantages; hence, animal selection should be based on the cost of acquisition, animal care, acceptability to society, availability, tolerance to captivity, and housing convenience. Among small animal models, rabbits are an ideal model for biological observations around implants, and it is worth noting that osseointegration was discovered in the rabbit model and successfully applied to humans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a major complication following total arthroplasty. Rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to antibiotics will further increase therapeutic insufficiency. New antibacterial technologies are being developed to prevent PJI. In vivo models are still needed to bridge the translational gap to clinical implementation. Though rabbit models have been used most frequently, there is no consensus about methodology and measured outcomes. The PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases were searched for literature on PJI in rabbit models. Data extraction included bias control, experimental design, and outcome measures of the NZW rabbit models in the articles. A total of 60 articles were included in this systematic literature review. The articles were divided into six groups based on the PJI intervention: no intervention used (21%), revision surgery (14%), prevention with only antibiotics (21%), prevention with surface modifications (7%), prevention with coatings (23%), and others (14%). Despite the current availability of guidelines and recommendations regarding experimental design, bias control, and outcome measures, many articles neglect to report on these matters. Ultimately, this analysis aims to assist researchers in determining suitable clinically relevant methodologies and outcome measures for in vivo PJI models using NZW rabbits to test new antimicrobial technologies.

The inclusion of animals in research studies involves a great responsibility to ensure animal welfare within the relevant ethical and legal frameworks. This study aimed to review compliance with the ARRIVE Essential 10 requirements and the ethical oversight of animal behaviour and welfare studies in farm animals. Three journals and a total of 133 articles were reviewed for compliance with the ARRIVE Essential 10 items and criteria. Each article obtained a final score according to whether or not each criterion was met within each item. Likewise, ethical declaration in each article was recorded. Chi-square test and linear models were built to assess associations between the ethical statement presentation and the final ARRIVE Essential 10 score with the country, the species, and the journal. We found that 15% of the articles did not present an ethical statement. The journal with the highest impact factor and the countries of the Global South presented an ethical statement more frequently. Regarding the Essential 10, the item with the lowest agreement score was 'Blinding' and the one with the highest agreement was 'Outcome Measures'. Also, significant differences were found between journals in terms of the Essential 10 score. Essential 10 provides relevant information that allows reviewers and readers to identify possible welfare risks and the validity of the results in animal welfare science publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Chaihu-Shugan-San (CSS) is a traditional Chinese medicine formula employed to treat depression. We aim to conduct a reporting quality assessment and risk of bias evaluation of animal research on CSS for depression. Methods: To acquire eligible studies, two reviewers searched plentiful databases from inception to October 23rd, 2021. Reporting quality assessment and risk of bias assessment of the included animal studies were evaluated by using Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines and the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool, respectively. Results: The initial search identified 720 records, while only 30 studies were included. The result of the reporting quality assessment was inferior, items 17 and 19 were not reported at all. The details of five items (items 3, 6, 7, 10, and 18) were not reported. The outcome of the risk of bias assessment suggested that half of the entries (5/10) displayed an unclear risk of bias and a high risk of bias. Blinding with regard to performance bias and detection bias revealed an unclear risk of bias (100%), followed by baseline characteristics (76.67%) and sequence generation (60%). Random outcome assessment showed a high risk of bias (100%). Conclusion: The included animal studies exhibited methodological defects and imprecise reporting. Hence, the ARRIVE guidelines and SYRCLE's RoB tool should be disseminated among basic medical researchers examining CSS for depression to publish studies with low risk of bias and sufficient reporting so that the animal research can promptly be transformed into clinical research.

Dental implants and bone augmentation are among dentistry’s most prevalent surgical treatments; hence, many dental implant surfaces and bone grafts have been researched to improve bone response. Such new materials were radiologically, histologically, and histomorphometrically evaluated on animals before being used on humans. As a result, several studies used animals to evaluate novel implant technologies, biocompatibility, surgical techniques, and osseointegration strategies, as preclinical research on animal models is essential to evaluate bioactive principles (on cells, compounds, and implants) that can act through multiple mechanisms and to predict animal behavior, which is difficult to predict from in vitro studies alone. In this study, we critically reviewed all research on different animal models investigating the osseointegration degree of new implant surfaces, reporting different species used in the osseointegration research over the last 30 years. Moreover, this is the first study to summarize reviews on the main animal models used in the translational research of osseointegration, including the advantages and limitations of each model and determining the ideal location for investigating osseointegration in small and large animal models. Overall, each model has advantages and disadvantages; hence, animal selection should be based on the cost of acquisition, animal care, acceptability to society, availability, tolerance to captivity, and housing convenience. Among small animal models, rabbits are an ideal model for biological observations around implants, and it is worth noting that osseointegration was discovered in the rabbit model and successfully applied to humans.

Telemetric monitoring is used in many scientific fields, such as cardiovascular research, neurology, endocrinology, as well as animal welfare research. Nowadays, implanted electrocardiogram (ECG) radiotelemetry units are the gold standard for monitoring ECG traces, heart rate and heart rate variability in freely moving mice. Telemetry technology can be a valuable tool when studies utilize it adequately, while prioritizing animal welfare. Recently, concerns have been raised in many research fields, including animal research, regarding the reproducibility of research findings, with insufficient reporting being one of the underlying causes. A systematic review was performed by making use of three literature databases, in order to include all publications until 31.12.2019, where the surgical placing of ECG recording telemetry devices in adult mice was involved. Data extracted from the publications included selected items recommended by the ARRIVE guidelines. We focused on aspects related to the refinement of the surgery and experimental conditions that aim to improve animal welfare. In general, the quality of reporting was low in the analyzed 234 publications. Based on our analyses, we assume there has been no improvement in this field's reporting quality since 2010 when the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting were introduced. Additionally, even though expert recommendations on telemetry surgery refinement have been available since many years now, no increase in uptake (or reporting) of these measures prior (e.g., acclimatization), during (e.g., asepsis) or after (e.g., social housing) the surgery could be observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Animal Technology & Welfare is the property of Institute of Animal Technology of Great Britain and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Animal models continue to be used to investigate cartilage repair strategies. Adequate anaesthesia and pain management are essential in order to guarantee acceptable animal welfare as well as reproducible experimental results. This systematic review evaluates reporting of anaesthesia and pain management in surgical large animal models (horse, pig, dog, goat and sheep) of (osteo)chondral repair. Manuscripts published between 2015 and 2020 were included after a comprehensive search strategy. Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics and qualitative review. Out of 223 eligible studies, 220 studies contained incomplete information on anaesthetic and pain management. Pre-, intra- and post-operative analgesia were not mentioned in 68%, 94%, and 64% of manuscripts respectively. A total of 176 studies reported that animals underwent general anaesthesia during surgery. Surprisingly, 30% of these articles did not provide any detail on anaesthetic management, while 37% reported using inhalant, hypnotic or sedative drugs only, without mention of analgesics. Pain monitoring was not reported in 87% of manuscripts. The vast majority of preclinical large animal studies on cartilage repair did not meet veterinary clinical standards for anaesthesia and analgesia, and failed to report according to the ARRIVE international guidelines. In light of serious welfare, ethical and translational validity concerns, improvement is urgently needed.

Purpose: Research papers involving animal studies often display poor reporting standards, leading to lower study reproducibility. We aim to determine the difference in reporting animal studies regarding abdominal wall hernia repair with mesh placement, before and after the publication of ARRIVE-2010 (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. Furthermore, we aim to present the most up-to-date reporting quality using the updated ARRIVE-2020 as criteria. Methods: All animal studies concerning hernia repair with meshes were systematically searched. Articles published in the 5 years leading up to the ARRIVE-2010 (pre-ARRIVE) and articles within the last 5 years until the updated ARRIVE 2.0 (post-ARRIVE) were compared for overall species and specific species separately. Articles published last year were evaluated for presenting fully reported (sub)items. Results: The number of fully reported (sub)items per article was on average significantly higher for pre-ARRIVE than post-ARRIVE for overall species (mean (SD) = 14.0 (2.8) vs. 12.6 (2.5), P < 0.001). The same applies to rabbit (mean (SD) = 14.8 (2.6) vs. 12.6 (2.6), P = 0.001) and pig studies (mean (SD) = 14.5 (2.7) vs. 11.6 (2.6), P = 0.004), with no significance in rat studies (mean (SD) = 13.6 (2.9) vs. 12.9 (2.3), P = 0.076). Significance was found in several (sub)items between pre-ARRIVE and post-ARRIVE (n = 7, 3, 8, and 3 for overall species, rat, rabbit, and pig studies, respectively). Conclusion: General reporting quality of animal experiments has been improved markedly by ARRIVE guidelines. However, more improvements are required considering the arrival of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a tool to improve the reporting quality of animal studies, ARRIVE guidelines have been recognized by many experts. However, limited to partial items are too tedious and the reasons for the lack of clear priorities for each item, it leads to barriers while the researchers try to use it in practice. Therefore, guide development experts re-revised the ARRIVE guide and published ARRIVE 2019. In this paper, ARRIVE 2019 was interpreted in detail in order to make full use of ARRIVE guidelines to improve the design, implementation and reporting of animal studies, and to improve the reproducibility of animal studies and the reproducibility of results.

Background: Inappropriate reporting of animal studies has been a serious issue. The Animals in Research: Reporting in Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines were published to improve design, analysis, and reporting of animal studies. Methods: The present study is a retrospective observational study of published original research using small laboratory animals. Studies published between the year 2015 and 2020 in Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR), Indian Journal of Pharmacology (IJP), Indian Journal of Experimental Biology (IJEB), and Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics (JPP) were reviewed in accordance with ARRIVE guidelines. Results: Three hundred and seventy-seven studies (JPP n=15, IJMR n=37, IJEB n=157, IJP n=167) were analyzed. A statement regarding ethics approval was reported in 90.2% of studies. Information regarding randomization and blinding was reported in 20.4% and 0.53% of studies, respectively. Only nine studies mentioned sample-size calculation. Macroenvironmental information such as room temperature/humidity were detailed in 87.5% and light/dark cycle in 96.5% of studies. Concerning microenvironmental conditions, access to food and water was reported in 75% of studies. Only 6.3% studies mentioned the details of adverse events. Information regarding humane endpoint was missing in all studies. Conclusion: Inappropriate and inadequate reporting in some areas of animal research need to be curbed by adhering to ARRIVE guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Question: As is the case with addiction research, science in general has a problem. Many scientific findings that have been published cannot be replicated. In biomedical research, the problem of the reproducibility of data arises across the entire translational continuum. However, there are two major translation gaps: One is the inadequate translation of findings from basic or preclinical research into human clinical research. The other arises from the transfer or implementation of findings from clinical studies into everyday clinical practice. An additional complication is the transfer of results from animal experiments to humans. Specific problems: Regardless of the area of research and the country of origin, research findings that have been published in the last few decades have almost exclusively been positive. This positive publication bias is increasingly contributing to translation problems. Another problem is represented by poor methodology. The accuracy with which preclinical data is collected and described, and the resulting robustness of the data is generally very low. It is often overlooked that findings from animal experiments, that are published, can ultimately only be generalized to a limited extent. Another translation problem that should by no means be underestimated, and that has not yet been discussed in the literature, refers to the fact that there is no placebo effect considered in animal studies. Suggestions: In this position paper, I am discussing a 10-point catalogue with which the reproducibility and translation of preclinical studies could be increased considerably. Conclusions: Despite the improved methodology proposed here, translation errors will continue to occur in the future. The decisive question is: Why did a translation error occur? The simplified explanation that findings from animal experiments cannot be applied to humans is not valid. An explanation for a translation error can usually be found through further research and a critical dialogue between the preclinical researcher and the clinician. In other words, we can learn from translation errors and the replication crisis is only a crisis if we cannot find an explanation for the lack of replication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective was to determine the rate at which Chinese journals include Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) Guidelines/Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) in their instructions for authors, and the awareness and recognition of editors. The survey was performed on Chinese journals. The most recent versions each journal's instructions for authors were downloaded, and the information related to the ARRIVE/GSPC was collected. A self-developed questionnaire was used to conduct the survey among the editors. Questionnaires were sent to 238 qualified journals and 198 of them returned them, achieving an 83.2% response rate. The results showed that none of the journals included the ARRIVE/GSPC in their instructions for authors, and the awareness rate was only 13.1% (26/198). The participants who were unaware of the ARRIVE/GSPC were less likely than those who were aware of them to believe it was necessary to include the ARRIVE/GSPC in the instructions for authors (23.3% vs. 61.5%), and less likely to request authors in their manuscript preparation (28.5% vs. 88.5%), editors in the editing and processing (28.5% vs. 84.6%) and reviewers in peer review stage (28.5% vs. 92.3%) to follow the ARRIVE/GSPC. Currently no Chinese journals include the ARRIVE/GSPC in their instructions for authors. The recognition rate of the ARRIVE/GSPC was low among the editors. So, we suggest that Chinese journals should promote inclusion of the ARRIVE/GSPC in journals' instructions for authors. It is also important to educate researchers and editors alike to increase their understanding of the ARRIVE/GSPC, so that the quality of reporting of animal study can be improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Portal vein occlusion and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy techniques are in the spotlight of oncological liver surgery. Research involving animal models is indispensable to study the mechanisms of liver regeneration. Inaccurate reporting acts as a significant barrier during the correct interpretation of preclinical findings. Hence, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the status quo of the reporting standards and to assess the potential factors influencing reporting in animal studies, which are focusing on portal vein occlusion and/or associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy techniques. Materials and methods A systematic review was performed in the PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE databases. Baseline study characteristics were recorded, and quality assessment was performed using the Animals in Research: Reporting in vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) checklist. Results A total of 107 research articles were included for the comprehensive assessment. In the subgroup analysis, newer reports and studies from the post-ARRIVE era, and reports from Europe were all associated with significantly higher ARRIVE scores (P < 0.05). Univariable regression analysis confirmed these factors as predictors of higher reporting quality. However, in the multivariable analysis, only publishing in the post-ARRIVE era has been found as single independent predictor of higher reporting standards (P = 0.028 post-ARRIVE total score 75th percentile; P = 0.000 post-ARRIVE total score median). Conclusions Although an improving trend has been observed in reporting quality over the past years, this effect was clearly insufficient. Our results emphasize the need for further measures to improve the methodical quality at all levels of planning, execution, and reporting of preclinical studies in liver regeneration research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The first version of Animal Research: Reporting of in vivo Experiments (ARRIVE 1.0) guidelines was introduced to improve reporting of animal research but did not lead to major improvements in this respect. This applied also to animal studies on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Here, we examined the performance of the revised version of these guidelines (ARRIVE 2.0)., Methods: Eighty-nine relevant articles published in 2018-2020 (ARRIVE 1.0 period) and 97 published in 2021-2023 (ARRIVE 2.0 period) were identified in PubMed® and analyzed for completeness and transparency of reporting., Results: In both periods, most studies were carried out in Asia, on rodents, and concerned the peritoneal pathophysiology. During ARRIVE 2.0, more studies were published in higher impact factor journals with the focus on pharmacology and immunology. Compared to ARRIVE 1.0, general aspects of study design and reporting improved during ARRIVE 2.0 period in studies generated in Europe and USA but did not change significantly in Asia. Detailed analysis showed no global improvement in completeness of reporting key information included in the ARRIVE 2.0 Essential 10 checklist. Articles from both periods were deficient in sample size calculations, use of blinding, recording adverse events and drop-outs, and specification of appropriate statistical methods. The level of reporting during ARRIVE 2.0 did not correspond to the journal impact factor and the presence of recommendations for the use of ARRIVE 2.0 in their instructions to authors., Conclusion: So far, ARRIVE 2.0 has not produced significant improvements in the reporting of animal studies in PD., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Aims: To perform a systematic literature review of the regenerative potential of bone substitutes used to fill critical size defects (CSDs) in rabbit calvariae; to determine the quality of the included studies using ARRIVE guidelines. Material and methods: An Internet search was performed in duplicate using MEDLINE, PubMed and Google Scholar databases (without restrictions on publication date) for studies reporting the regenerative potential of bone substitutes in CSDs in rabbit calvariae. Four parameters were analyzed by histomorphometry: new bone formation (NB); defect closure (DC); residual graft (RG); and connective tissue (CT). Animal Research Reporting in In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines (a list of 20 aspects for scoring texts and ensuring comparison between different experimental studies in animals) were used to evaluate the quality of the selected works. Results: Twenty‐one manuscripts were included. CSDs with 15 mm were predominant (57.14%). Only one study described the four histomorphometric parameters. NB formation was analyzed in 15 studies (71.42%) and was higher for particulate autogenous bone grafts (range 52.1–82%) after 12 weeks. DC was evaluated in six studies (28.57%) and was higher for fragmented adipose tissue grafts (range 53.33–93.33%) after 12 weeks. RG was evaluated in four studies (19.04%) and was higher for hydroxyapatite/beta‐tricalcium phosphate grafts with silica (HA/ß‐TCP + Si) (range 35.78–47.54%) at 12 weeks. CT was evaluated in two studies (9.5%) and was higher for HA/ß‐TCP + membrane (44.2%) at 12 weeks. Quality evaluation identified three items (title, introduction/objectives and experimental procedure) (15%) with excellent scores, 10 items (abstract, introduction/background, methods/ethical statement, experimental animals, experimental outcomes, statistics, results/baseline data, outcome/estimation and discussion interpretation/scientific implications) (50%) with average scores, and seven items (housing and husbandry, sample size, allocation, numbers analyzed, adverse effects, general applicability/relevance and funding) (35%) obtained poor scores. Only one manuscript obtained a quality evaluation considered as excellent. Conclusions: Autogenous bone grafts increase NB. DC is enhanced by the use of fragmented adipose tissue. RG remains in the defect for longer when hydroxyapatite/beta‐tricalcium phosphate with silica is used, and more CT can be expected when hydroxyapatite/beta‐tricalcium phosphate with silica grafts are covered by a membrane. The addition of stem cells of different origins to grafting materials enhances bone formation in early healing periods. The ARRIVE guidelines are still insufficiently used and the overall quality of studies remains low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last two decades, pigs have become animal biomodels widely used for the investigation and practice of surgical techniques because of their great physiological and anatomical similarities to humans. Even though many of these studies must be carried out later in humans, the description of basic information is limited, making exact repetitions of the reported experimental methods impossible. In this review, 108 studies from 2013 to 2018 were considered to determine the quality of adherence to the ARRIVE guidelines in the reports of the methodologies. The majority of the studies lacked the details recommended in the ARRIVE guidelines regarding data directly related to the welfare of animals undergoing surgery and those about anesthetic protocols and analgesics. Information related to sample size calculation and housing and husbandry conditions was also very limited. We believe that the ARRIVE guidelines are an excellent tool for good-quality reporting. We encourage scientists to consistently use them as a tool to improve the quality of their scientific reports and, consequently, ensure animal welfare.

Scientists aspire to measure cause and effect. Unfortunately confounding variables, ones that are associated with both the probable cause and the outcome, can lead to an association that is true but potentially misleading. For example, altered body weight is often observed in a gene knockout; however, many other variables, such as lean mass, will also change as the body weight changes. This leaves the researcher asking whether the change in that variable is expected for that change in weight. Ratio correction, which is often referred to as normalization, is a method used commonly to remove the effect of a confounding variable. Although ratio correction is used widely in biological research, it is not the method recommended in the statistical literature to address confounding factors; instead regression methods such as the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) are proposed. This method examines the difference in means after adjusting for the confounding relationship. Using real data, this manuscript demonstrates how the ratio correction approach is flawed and can result in erroneous calls of significance leading to inappropriate biological conclusions. This arises as some of the underlying assumptions are not met. The manuscript goes on to demonstrate that researchers should use ANCOVA, and discusses how graphical tools can be used readily to judge the robustness of this method. This study is therefore a clear example of why assumption testing is an important component of a study and thus why it is included in the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiment (ARRIVE) guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the inaugural issue of ATLA , many changes within publishing have occurred, impacting when, where, and how researchers conduct literature searches for non-animal alternatives. Such changes include increased rate of growth in scientific publications, greater number of databases and online resources available to search, opportunities for open and almost immediate dissemination of research outputs such as preprints and method protocols, and the development of reporting guidelines for animal research. Here we offer a librarian's perspective on these changes and advice on how to manage them to enable robust and diverse alternatives to be implemented in future research.

Dogs are the experimental model in many types of biomedical research. Each year, hundreds of publications report the use of dogs in invasive biomedical procedures, often without sufficient explanation of the purpose and justification for selecting dog as the experimental model. The European Union requires detailed reporting of animal use that includes research purpose, but animal use reporting in the United States, overseen by the USDA, does not require this information. The ability to replace dogs with alternative models begins by understanding how they are used. Therefore, this study was undertaken to investigate the types of invasive biomedical procedures that dogs are subjected to in US laboratories. Well-defined sets of research publications and grants were accessed to obtain information on the types of biomedical research using dogs. USDA databases provided additional information. An ontology to categorize biomedical research uses of dogs identified the most common as translational studies for cardiovascular, cancer, nervous/mental, and mus-culoskeletal disorders. Information typically reported for experimental animals was sometimes missing or incomplete in publications, including the number, source, fate, species justification, and pain management of dogs, suggesting that many journals have not adopted the ARRIVE guidelines on animal use reporting. It was not possible to identify the research purpose for all dogs used by US institutions because (a) not all dog use is published and (b) animal research purpose is not required reporting in the US. These findings should be informative to future initiatives to replace, reduce, and refine the use of dogs in research.

The concerns about reproducibility and validity of animal studies are partly related to poor experimental design and reporting. Here, we undertook a scoping review of the literature to determine the extent and quality of reporting of animal studies on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Online databases were searched to identify 567 relevant original articles published between 1979 and 2018. These were analyzed with respect to bibliographic parameters and general aspects of animal experimentation. A subgroup of 120 studies was analyzed in detail in terms of the impact on the reporting quality of the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines for animal studies. The number of animal studies on PD increased continuously over the years with a thematic shift toward long-term preservation of the peritoneum as a dialyzing organ. There were significant deficiencies in research design with the lack of sample size estimation, randomization, and blinding being the commonest shortcomings. The description of animal numbers, housing conditions, use of medication, and statistical analysis was incomplete. The introduction in 2010 of the ARRIVE guidelines produced very little improvement in the completeness of reporting regardless of journal impact factor. The animal studies on PD suffer from deficits in experimental protocols and transparent reporting. These drawbacks need to be corrected to ensure high-quality and much-needed animal research in PD.

The quality of animal experiments in terms of appropriate reporting is a concern, particularly with regard to their validity and the recording of the measures taken to reduce various types of bias. A systematic survey of 1371 and 236 publications from India and Sri Lanka, respectively, which were published between 1905 and 2017 and indexed in NCBI-PubMed, Cinhal, MEDLINE and Scopus, was carried out. The level of detail in the descriptions of animals used and the measures taken to reduce bias were analysed in each article. Selected parameters from the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, such as age, weight, sex, sample size calculation, blinding and randomisation were considered. The findings revealed poor reporting standards in animal experiments carried out in India and Sri Lanka, confirming the limited impact of the ARRIVE guidelines. These findings emphasise the urgent need for improvements in the peer review process, both prior to a study being set up and in the post-study reporting phase, and for more stringent adherence to the ARRIVE guidelines in the reporting of animal experiments.

Simple Summary: Through a systematic review of reports where swine were used as animal biomodels for testing or researching new surgical techniques, we sought to determine the quality of the report of the methodologies carried out on the basis of the ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) in a total of 108 studies from 2013 to 2018. In a large percentage of the articles, the information presented in the methodology of the studies showed incomplete data according to the ARRIVE guidelines recommendations for reporting the use of animals. There was a strong focus on descriptions of surgical techniques; however, sample size calculation, description of maintenance conditions, animal handling, and anesthetic and pain management protocols used were not very detailed. This could lead to the inability of others to replicate the described experiments. For this reason, we encourage authors to implement the ARRIVE guidelines to improve the quality of scientific reports and ensure animal welfare. Over the last two decades, pigs have become animal biomodels widely used for the investigation and practice of surgical techniques because of their great physiological and anatomical similarities to humans. Even though many of these studies must be carried out later in humans, the description of basic information is limited, making exact repetitions of the reported experimental methods impossible. In this review, 108 studies from 2013 to 2018 were considered to determine the quality of adherence to the ARRIVE guidelines in the reports of the methodologies. The majority of the studies lacked the details recommended in the ARRIVE guidelines regarding data directly related to the welfare of animals undergoing surgery and those about anesthetic protocols and analgesics. Information related to sample size calculation and housing and husbandry conditions was also very limited. We believe that the ARRIVE guidelines are an excellent tool for good-quality reporting. We encourage scientists to consistently use them as a tool to improve the quality of their scientific reports and, consequently, ensure animal welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Translational neuroscience is largely concerned with establishing causal links between biological processes and functional outcomes. Exciting new methods have emerged and top‐tier biomedical journals are placing increasingly high demand for experiments that link outcomes. One pitfall to making these connections is the "ecological fallacy"—establishing a relationship between outcomes based on aggregate (averaged) results (a distinct issue from correlation vs causation). Methods: To showcase the ecological fallacy, we first used simulated data to define and demonstrate the problem. Next, we performed a systematic review to determine the prevalence of the fallacy in top‐tier biomedical journals (Science, Nature Medicine, Neuron, Nature, Nature Neuroscience, Cell). Based on our own research interests and specializations, we specifically focused on recent publications in the area of spinal cord injury and regenerative medicine. Results: Of the articles reviewed which examined a relationship between central nervous system regeneration and a behavioural outcome, 100% (21/21) were subject to possible ecological fallacy. Conclusions: Ecological fallacy is highly prevalent in neuroscience research and could partially account for translation failures in this field. Reporting guidelines for in vivo experiments should include subject‐level correlation analyses for the primary outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite increasing ethical standards for conducting animal research, death is still often used as an endpoint in mouse sepsis studies. Recently, the Murine Sepsis Score (MSS), Mouse Clinical Assessment Score for Sepsis (M-CASS), and Mouse Grimace Scale (MGS) were developed as surrogate endpoint scoring systems for assessing pain and disease severity in mice. The objective of our study was to compare the effectiveness of these scoring systems and monitoring of body temperature for predicting disease progression and death in the cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) sepsis model, in order to better inform selection of surrogate endpoints for death in experimental sepsis.Methods: C57Bl/6J mice were subjected to control sham surgery, or moderate or severe CLP sepsis. All mice were monitored every 4 h for surrogate markers of death using modified versions of the MSS, M-CASS, and MGS scoring systems until 24 h post-operatively, or until endpoint (inability to ambulate) and consequent euthanasia.Results: Thirty percent of mice subjected to moderate severity CLP reached endpoint by 24 h post-CLP, whereas 100% undergoing severe CLP reached endpoint within 20 h. Modified MSS, M-CASS, and MGS scores all increased, while body temperature decreased, in a time-dependent and sepsis severity-dependent manner, although modified M-CASS scores showed substantial variability. Receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrate that the last recorded body temperature (AUC = 0.88; 95% CI 0.77-0.99), change in body temperature (AUC = 0.89; 95% CI 0.78-0.99), modified M-CASS (AUC = 0.93; 95% CI 0.85-1.00), and modified MSS (AUC = 0.95; 95% CI 0.88-1.01) scores are all robust for predicting death in CLP sepsis, whereas modified MGS (AUC = 0.78; 95% CI 0.63-0.92) is less robust.Conclusions: The modified MSS and body temperature are effective markers for assessing disease severity and predicting death in the CLP model, and should thus be considered as valid surrogate markers to replace death as an endpoint in mouse CLP sepsis studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]