Skip to main content
NC3Rs: National Centre for the Replacement Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research
Office-led project

ARRIVE: Animal Research Reporting In Vivo Experiments

At a glance

In progress

R

  • Reduction

Overview

The logo of the ARRIVE guidelines

The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines are intended to improve the reporting of research using animals – maximising information published and minimising unnecessary studies.

Background

The ARRIVE guidelines were developed as part of an NC3Rs initiative to improve standards of reporting and ensure that the data from animal experiments can be fully evaluated and utilised. The guidelines are aimed primarily at scientists writing up their research for publication and for those who are involved in peer review.

The guidelines were initially published in the online journal PLOS Biology in June 2010 and are currently endorsed by scientific journals, funding bodies, universities and learned societies. Developed in consultation with the scientific community, including researchers, statisticians, journal editors and funders, the original guidelines consisted of a 20-point checklist of the essential information that should be included in publications reporting animal research.

Previous work by the NC3Rs showed that many publications reporting publicly-funded animal research from the UK and US lacked key information on how the study was designed, conducted and analysed, which could limit their value in informing future scientific studies and policy.

The ARRIVE guidelines have recently been revised. The new guidelines – ARRIVE 2.0 – were released in July 2020.

More information about the ARRIVE guidelines, including resources and information on how journals, funders, institutions and other organisations can use and promote the guidelines, is available at www.ARRIVEguidelines.org.

Publications

Publications related to the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0, released in 2020, can be found on the ARRIVE guidelines website.

Publications and editorials mentioning the original ARRIVE guidelines:

 

2019

  1. Bauer TW et al. (2019). JBJS will require adherence to ARRIVE guidelines for animal research to reduce bias and improve quality of reporting. J Bone Joint Surg 101(21): 1891-3. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.19.01001
  2. Hair K et al. (2019). A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus). Res Integr Peer Rev 4: 12. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3

    2017

    1. Munafò MR et al. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav 0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021 

      2016

      1. Vogt L et al. (2016). Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor. PLoS Biol 14(12): e2000598. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000598
      2. Reichlin TS et al. (2016). The Researchers’ View of Scientific Rigor—Survey on the Conduct and Reporting of In Vivo Research. PLoS One 11(12): e0165999. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165999
      3. Avey M et al. (2016). The Devil Is in the Details: Incomplete Reporting in Preclinical Animal Research. PLoS One 11(11): e0166733. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166733
      4. Cressey D (2016). Surge in support for animal-research guidelines. Nature. doi: 10.1038/nature.2016.19274
      5. Eisenach JC et al. (2016). Reporting of preclinical research in Anesthesiology: transparency and enforcement. Anesthesiology 124: 763-65. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001044
      6. Flórez-Vargas O et al. (2016). Bias in the reporting of sex and age in biomedical research on mouse models. eLife 5:e13615. doi: 10.7554/eLife.13615
      7. Holman C et al. (2016). Where have all the rodents gone? The effects of attrition in experimental research on cancer and stroke. PLoS Biol 14(1):e1002331. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.100233

        2015

        1. Begley GC et al. (2015). Robust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility. Nature 525: 25-7. doi: 10.1038/525025a
        2. Curtis MJ and Abernethy DR (2015). Revision of instructions to authors for pharmacology research and perspectives: enhancing the quality and transparency of published work. Pharmacol Res Perspect  3(2): e00106. doi: 10.1002/prp2.106
        3. Galiando L et al. (2015). Guidelines ARRIVE review, in Chilean scientific journal articles, indexed in Thomson Reuters, that use animal experimentation, in vivo, between years 2010 and 2012. Acta Bioeth 21(1): 103-8. doi: 10.4067/S1726-569X2015000100013
        4. Hutchinson TH and Burden N (2015). In Response: Benefits of the ARRIVE guidelines for improving scientific reporting in ecotoxicology - An academic perspective. Environ Toxicol Chem 34(11): 2446-8. doi: 10.1002/etc.3111
        5. Karp NA et al. (2015). Applying the ARRIVE Guidelines to an In Vivo Database. PLoS Biol 13(5): e1002151. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002151
        6. McGrath JC et al. (2015). Transparency in Research involving Animals: The Basel Declaration and new principles for reporting research in BJP manuscripts. Br J Pharmacol 172(10): 2427-32. doi: 10.1111/bph.12956
        7. McGrath JC and Curtis MJ (2015). BJP is changing its requirements for scientific papers to increase transparency. Br J Pharmacol 172(11):2671-4. doi: 10.1111/bph.12954
        8. Moher D et al. (2015). The National Institutes of Health and guidance for reporting preclinical research. BMC Med 13:34. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0284-9
        9. Scudamore CL et al. (2015). Recommendations for minimum information for publication of experimental pathology data: MINPEPA Guidelines. J Path. 238:359–67 doi: 10.1002/path4642 
        10. Ting KHJ et al. (2015). Quality of reporting of interventional animal studies in rheumatology: a systematic review using the ARRIVE guidelines. Int J Rheum Dis 18(5): 488-94. doi: 10.1111/1756-185X.12699
        11. Numbers matter. Nature 520, 263-4. doi: 10.1038/520263b

          2014

          1. Bailoo JD et al. (2014). Refinement of experimental design and conduct in laboratory animal research. ILAR J 55(3): 383-91. doi: 10.1093/ilar/ilu037 
          2. Baker D et al. (2014). Two years later: Journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting standards for pre-clinical animal studies. PLoS Biol 12(1): e1001756. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001756
          3. Burdge GC (2014). Improving standards for reporting studies involving humans and experimental animals in the British Journal of Nutrition and in the Journal of Nutritional Science. Br J Nutr 112(9): 1423-4. doi: 10.1017/S0007114514002372
          4. Eisen JA et al. (2014). Open science and reporting animal studies: who's accountable? PLoS Biol 12(1): e1001757 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001757
          5. Hirst JA et al. (2014). The need for randomisation in animal trials: an overview of systematic reviews. PLoS One 9(6): e98856. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098856 
          6. Kilkenny C et al. (2014). Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. Animals (Basel) 4(1): 35-44 doi: 10.3390/ani4010035 
          7. Pearson J (2014). Use of animals in research and reporting of animal experiments - The need for improvement. Vascul Pharmacol 62(1): 1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.vph.2014.05.009
          8. Pound P et al. (2014). Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? Br Med J 348: g3387. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3387
          9. Macleod M (2014). Some salt with your statin, Professor? PLoS Med 12(1): e1001768. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001768
          10. Macleod M et al. (2014). Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383(9912): 101-4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6

            2013

            1. Anderson JA et al. (2013). Ethical reproducibility: towards transparent reporting in biomedical research. Nat Meth 10(9): 843-5. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2564
            2. Hooijmans CR and Ritskes-Hoitinga M (2013). Progress in using systematic reviews of animal studies to improve translational research. PLoS Med 10(7): e1001482. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001482
            3. Khan MA (2013). Reporting animal research - arrival of 'ARRIVE'Pakistan Journal of Physiology 9(2). 
            4. Rice ASC et al. (2013). 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. Scand J Pain 4(2): 58-62. doi: 10.1016/j.sjpain.2013.02.002
            5. Tilson HA and Schroeder JC (2013). Reporting of results from animal studies. Enivron Health Perspect 121: A320-A321. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1307676
            6. The PLOS Medicine Editors (2013). Translating translational research into global health gains. PLoS Med 10(7): e1001493. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001493 
            7. The PLOS Medicine Editors (2013). Better reporting of scientific studies: Why it matters. PLoS Med 10(8): e1001504. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001504
            8. Vasilevsky NA et al. (2013). On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature. PeerJ 1: e148. doi: 10.7717/peerj.148 
            9. Vesterinen HM et al. (2013) In support of EHP's proposal to adopt the ARRIVE guidelines. Environ Health Perspect 121(11-12): A325. doi: 10.1289/ehp.130775

              2012

              1. Kilkenny C et al. (2012). Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. Vet Clin Pathol 41(1): 27-31 doi: 10.1111/j.1939-165X.2012.00418.x
              2. Percie du Sert N (2012). Maximising the output of osteoarthritis research: the ARRIVE guidelines. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 20(4):253-5. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2011.12.017
              3. Reynolds PS (2012). Twenty years after: Do animal trials inform clinical resuscitation research? Resuscitation 83(1): 16-7. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.10.020
              4. Reynolds PS et al. (2012) Shock supports the use of animal research reporting guidelines. Shock 38(1): 1-3. doi: 10.1097/SHK.0b013e31825f396c
              5. The ‘3Is’ of animal experimentation. Nat Genet 44(6): 611. doi: 10.1038/ng.2322

                2011

                1. Animal rights and wrongs. Nature 470(7335): 435. doi: 10.1038/470435a
                2. Blomme EAG (2011) The ARRIVE guidelines: A resource for authors and reviewers to ensure that submissions to The Veterinary Journal meet minimal expectations of completeness, accuracy and transparency. Vet J 189(3): 237-8. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.07.008 
                3. Hess KR (2011). Statistical design considerations in animal studies published recently in Cancer Research. Cancer Res 71(2): 625. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3296
                4. Percie du Sert N (2011). Improving the reporting of animal research: when will we ARRIVE? Dis Model Mech 4(3): 281-2. doi: 10.1242/dmm.007971
                5. Percie du Sert N (2011). Systematic review and meta-analysis of pre-clinical research: the need for reporting guidelines” Eur Heart J 32(19): 2333-40. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr271
                6. Siegel V (2011). Reproducibility in research. Dis Model Mech 4(3): 279-80. doi: 10.1242/dmm.008037

                  2010

                  1. Danos O et al. (2010) The ARRIVE guidelines, a welcome improvement to standards for reporting animal research. J Gene Med 12: 559-60. doi: 10.1002/jgm.147
                  2. Dirnagl U and Lauritzen M (2010). Improving the quality of biomedical research: Guidelines for reporting experiments involving animals. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 31: 989-90. doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.2010.219
                  3. ​Galley HF (2010). Mice, men and medicine. Br J Anaesth 105(4): 396-400. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq256
                  4. Festing M (2010). Statistics and animals in biomedical research. Signif (Oxf) 7: 176-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2010.00459
                  5. Festing S (2010). Don’t waste lab animals. New Sci 206(2763): 22-3. doi: 10.1016/S0262-4079(10)61370-X
                  6. MacCallum CJ (2010). Reporting Animal Studies: Good Science and a Duty of Care. PLoS Biol 8(6): e1000413. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.100413
                  7. Kilkenny C et al. (2010). Animal research: Reporting in vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines. Br J Pharmacol 160(7):1577-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00872.x
                  8. Kilkenny C et al. (2010). Animal research: Reporting in vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines. Exp Physiol 95: 842-4. doi: 10.1113/expphysiol.2010.053793
                  9. Kilkenny C et al. (2010). Animal research: Reporting in vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 31: 991-3. doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2010.220
                  10. Kilkenny C et al. (2010). Animal research: Reporting in vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines. J Gene Med 12(7): 561-3. doi: 10.1002/jgm.1473
                  11. Kilkenny C et al. (2010). Animal research: Reporting in vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 1(2): 94-9. doi: 10.4103/0976-500X.72351
                  12. Kilkenny C et al. (2010). Animal research: Reporting in vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines. The Journal of Physiol 588: 2519-21. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2010.192278
                  13. Kilkenny C et al. (2010). Animal research: Reporting in vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines. Lab Anim 44(4): 377-8. doi: 10.1258/la.2010.0010021
                  14. Kilkenny C et al. (2010). Animal research: Reporting in vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 20(4): 256-60. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2012.02.010
                  15. Kilkenny C et al. (2010) Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research. PLoS Biol 8(6): e1000412. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412
                  16. McGrath JC et al. (2010) Guidelines for reporting experiments involving animals; the ARRIVE guidelines. Br J Pharmacol 160: 1573-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00873.x
                  17. Robinson V (2010). Make every animal experiment count. New Sci 207(2767):3. doi: 10.1016/S0262-4079(10)61582-5