A qualitative study of the barriers to using blinding in in vivo experiments and suggestions for improvement

In animal experiments, blinding (also known as masking) is a methodological strategy to reduce the risk that scientists, animal care staff, or other staff involved in the research may consciously or subconsciously influence the outcome. Lack of masking has been shown to correlate with an overestimation of treatment efficacy and false positive findings. We conducted exploratory interviews across academic and a commercial setting to discuss the implementation of masking at four stages of the experiment: during allocation and intervention, during the conduct of the experiment, during the outcome assessment, and during the data analysis. The objective was to explore the awareness, engagement, perceptions, and the barriers to implementing masking in animal experiments. We conducted multiple interviews, to explore 30 different experiments, and found examples of excellent practice but also areas where masking was rarely implemented. Significant barriers arose from the operational and informatic systems implemented. These systems have prioritised the management of welfare without considering how to allow researchers to use masking in their experiments. For some experiments, there was a conflict between the management of welfare for an individual animal versus delivering a robust experiment where all animals are treated in the same manner. We identified other challenges related to the level of knowledge on the purpose of masking or the implementation and the work culture. The exploration of these issues provides insight into how we, as a community, can identify the most significant barriers in a given research environment. Here, we offer practical solutions to enable researchers to implement masking as standard. To move forward, we need both the individual scientists to embrace the use of masking and the facility managers and institutes to engage and provide a framework that supports the scientists.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the 'ARRIVE Essential 10,' which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the 'Recommended Set,' which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into two sets, the 'ARRIVE Essential 10', which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the 'Recommended Set', which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research is a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting is vital to this process; it allows readers to assess the reliability of the findings and repeat or build upon the work of other researchers. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) were developed in 2010 to help authors and journals identify the minimum information necessary to report in publications describing in vivo experiments. Despite widespread endorsement by the scientific community, the impact of ARRIVE on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. We have revised the ARRIVE guidelines to update them and facilitate their use in practice. The revised guidelines are published alongside this paper. This explanation and elaboration document was developed as part of the revision. It provides further information about each of the 21 items in ARRIVE 2.0, including the rationale and supporting evidence for their inclusion in the guidelines, elaboration of details to report, and examples of good reporting from the published literature. This document also covers advice and best practice in the design and conduct of animal studies to support researchers in improving standards from the start of the experimental design process through to publication.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

Framework for advancing rigorous research

There is a pressing need to increase the rigor of research in the life and biomedical sciences. To address this issue, we propose that communities of 'rigor champions' be established to campaign for reforms of the research culture that has led to shortcomings in rigor. These communities of rigor champions would also assist in the development and adoption of a comprehensive educational platform that would teach the principles of rigorous science to researchers at all career stages.

Revision of the ARRIVE guidelines: rationale and scope

In 2010, the NC3Rs published the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to improve the reporting of animal research. Despite considerable levels of support from the scientific community, the impact on the quality of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. This position paper highlights the strategy of an expert working group established to revise the guidelines and facilitate their uptake. The group's initial work will focus on three main areas: prioritisation of the ARRIVE items into a tiered system, development of an explanation and elaboration document, and revision of specific items.

The NC3Rs gateway: Accelerating scientific discoveries with new 3Rs models and technologies

This editorial introduces the NC3Rs gateway, which publishes articles and reviews on new models and technologies emerging from NC3Rs-funded research. The aim is to raise awareness about these approaches, increase confidence in their capability, and provide sufficient information to facilitate their uptake by others.

The IMPROVE Guidelines (Ischaemia Models: Procedural Refinements Of in Vivo Experiments)

Most in vivo models of ischaemic stroke target the middle cerebral artery and a spectrum of stroke severities, from mild to substantial, can be achieved. This review describes opportunities to improve the in vivo modelling of ischaemic stroke and animal welfare. It provides a number of recommendations to minimise the level of severity in the most common rodent models of middle cerebral artery occlusion, while sustaining or improving the scientific outcomes. The recommendations cover basic requirements pre-surgery, selecting the most appropriate anaesthetic and analgesic regimen, as well as intraoperative and post-operative care. The aim is to provide support for researchers and animal care staff to refine their procedures and practices, and implement small incremental changes to improve the welfare of the animals used and to answer the scientific question under investigation. All recommendations are recapitulated in a summary poster (see supplementary information).

The Experimental Design Assistant

Addressing the common problems that researchers encounter when designing and analysing animal experiments will improve the reliability of in vivo research. In this article, the Experimental Design Assistant (EDA) is introduced. The EDA is a web-based tool that guides the in vivo researcher through the experimental design and analysis process, providing automated feedback on the proposed design and generating a graphical summary that aids communication with colleagues, funders, regulatory authorities, and the wider scientific community. It will have an important role in addressing causes of irreproducibility.

A manifesto for reproducible science

Improving the reliability and efficiency of scientific research will increase the credibility of the published scientific literature and accelerate discovery. Here we argue for the adoption of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives. There is some evidence from both simulations and empirical studies supporting the likely effectiveness of these measures, but their broad adoption by researchers, institutions, funders and journals will require iterative evaluation and improvement. We discuss the goals of these measures, and how they can be implemented, in the hope that this will facilitate action toward improving the transparency, reproducibility and efficiency of scientific research.

Predicting the emetic liability of novel chemical entities: a comparative study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Emesis is a multi-system reflex, which is usually investigated using in vivo models. The aim of the study is to compare the response induced by emetic compounds across species and investigate whether dogs, ferrets and rats are all similarly predictive of humans.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

A systematic review was carried out and relevant publications were identified from PubMed. The search was restricted to four species (human, dog, ferret, rat) and ten compounds representative of various mechanisms of emesis induction (apomorphine, cisplatin, cholecystokinin octapeptide, copper sulphate, cyclophosphamide, ipecacuanha, lithium chloride, morphine, nicotine, rolipram).

KEY RESULTS

1046 publications were reviewed, and 311 were included, the main reason for exclusion was the lack of quantitative data. Emetic or pica data were extracted as incidence, intensity or latency. All three animal species identified emetic liability but interspecies differences for dose sensitivity were detected.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATION

These results suggest that emetic liability can be reliably identified in a common laboratory species such as the rat. However, to evaluate the characteristics of the emetic response, no animal species is a universal predictor of emetic liability and the choice of species should be an informed decision based on the type of compound investigated. Limitations relating to the conduct and reporting of emesis studies were identified, the main ones being the lack of comparable outcome measures between human and animal data, and the limited availability of human data in the public domain.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of pre-clinical research: the need for reporting guidelines

Animal studies should be reviewed more objectively before embarking on human clinical trials, hence the need for guidelines argues the NC3Rs

Telemetry in a motion-sickness model implicates the abdominal vagus in motion-induced gastric dysrhythmia

In humans, motion sickness is associated with disruption of normal gastric myoelectric activity, and it has been proposed that this results from an imbalance of autonomic nervous system activity. We used the established Suncus murinus (house musk shrew) model of motion-induced emesis to investigate the effect of horizontal motion on gastric myoelectric activity (recorded using telemetry) and the involvement of the abdominal vagi. Surgical vagotomy increased baseline dysrhythmia and reduced the dominant power of the gastric myoelectric signals. In response to motion, normal gastric myoelectric activity was reduced in sham-operated animals but not in vagotomized animals. Vagotomy, however, failed to affect motion-induced emesis. In conclusion, motion had a differential effect in sham-operated and vagotomized animals, which is consistent with the hypothesis that motion-induced dysrhythmia arises from an autonomic nervous system imbalance.

Reduced normogastric electrical activity associated with emesis: A telemetric study in ferrets

AIM: To characterize the gastric myoelectric activity (GMA) and intra-abdominal pressure changes induced by emetic stimuli (apomorphine and cisplatin) in the ferret.

METHODS: GMA and intra-abdominal pressure were recorded in conscious, unrestrained ferrets surgically implanted with radiotelemetry transmitters. Animals were challenged with apomorphine (0.25 mg/kg sc) and cisplatin (10 mg/kg ip), and the emetic response was quantified via direct observation and intra-abdominal pressure recording for 1 and 4 h, respectively. The GMA was analyzed by spectral analysis; the parameters used to characterize the GMA were the dominant frequency (DF) and the repartition of spectral power in the bradygastric, normogastric and tachygastric frequency ranges.

RESULTS: Retches were identified on the intra-abdominal pressure trace as peaks 0.30 ± 1.01 s in duration and 59.57 ± 2.74 mmHg in amplitude, vomit peaks were longer (0.82 ± 0.06 s, P < 0.01) and reached a higher pressure (87.73 ± 8.12 mmHg, P < 0.001). The number of retches and vomits quantified via direct observation [apomorphine: 65.5 ± 11.8 retches + vomits (R+V), cisplatin: 202.6 ± 64.1 R+V] and intra-abdominal pressure (apomorphine: 68.3 ± 13.7 R+V, n = 8; cisplatin: 219.0 ± 69.2 R+V, n = 8) were correlated (r = 0.97, P < 0.0001) and the timing of emesis was consistent between the 2 methods. Apomorphine induced a decrease in normogastria from 45.48% ± 4.35% to 36.70 ± 4.34% (n = 8, P < 0.05) but the DF of the slow waves was not changed [8.95 ± 0.25 counts/min (cpm) vs 8.68 ± 0.35 cpm, n = 8, P > 0.05]. Cisplatin induced a decrease in normogastria from 55.83% ± 4.30% to 29.22% ± 5.16% and an increase in bradygastria from 14.28% ± 2.32% to 31.19% ± 8.33% (n = 8, P < 0.001) but the DF (9.14 ± 0.13 cpm) remained unchanged (P > 0.05). The GMA changes induced by cisplatin preceded the emetic response as normogastria was reduced for 1 h before the onset of emesis (57.61% ± 5.66% to 39.91% ± 5.74%, n = 6, P < 0.05). Peri-emesis analysis revealed that the GMA was significantly disturbed during and immediately after, but not immediately before, the emetic episodes.

CONCLUSION: The induction of emesis is reliably associated with a disrupted GMA, but changes may also occur prior to and following the emetic response.

Olvanil: a non-pungent TRPV1 activator has anti-emetic properties in the ferret

Anti-emetic drugs such as the tachykinin NK(1) receptor antagonists are useful to control emesis induced by diverse challenges. Evidence suggests pungent capsaicin-like TRPV1 activators also have broad inhibitory anti-emetic activity. However, pungent compounds are associated with undesirable effects including adverse actions on the cardiovascular system and on temperature homeostasis. In the present investigations using the ferret, we examine if the non-pungent vanilloid, olvanil, has useful anti-emetic properties without adversely affecting behaviour, blood pressure or temperature control. Olvanil (0.05-5 mg/kg, s.c.) was compared to the pungent vanilloid, resiniferatoxin (RTX; 0.1 mg/kg, s.c.), and to the anandamide reuptake inhibitor, AM404 (10 mg/kg, s.c.), for a potential to inhibit emesis induced by apomorphine (0.25 mg/kg, s.c.), copper sulphate (50 mg/kg, intragastric), and cisplatin (10 mg/kg, i.p.). Changes in blood pressure and temperature were also recorded using radiotelemetry implants. In peripheral administration studies, RTX caused transient hypertension, hypothermia and reduced food and water intake, but also significantly inhibited emesis induced by apomorphine, copper sulphate, or cisplatin. Olvanil did not have a similar adverse profile, and antagonised apomorphine- and cisplatin-induced emesis but not that induced by copper sulphate. AM404 reduced only emesis induced by cisplatin without affecting other parameters measured. Following intracerebral administration only olvanil antagonised cisplatin-induced emesis, but this was associated with transient hypothermia. In conclusion, olvanil demonstrated clear anti-emetic activity in the absence of overt cardiovascular, homeostatic, or behavioural effects associated with the pungent vanilloid, RTX. Our studies indicate that non-pungent vanilloids may have a useful spectrum of anti-emetic properties via central and/or peripheral mechanisms after peripheral administration.