Skip to main content

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

Abstract

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.

References

  1. Baker M. Is there a reproducibility crisis? Nature 2016; 533(7604): 452–454.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman D G. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol 2010; 8(6): e1000412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kilkenny C, Parsons N, Kadyszewski E, Festing MF, Cuthill IC, Fry D, Hutton J, Altman D G. Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PloS one 2009; 4(11): e7824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Burden N, Chapman K, Sewell F, Robinson V. Pioneering better science through the 3Rs: an introduction to the national centre for the replacement, refinement, and reduction of animals in research (NC3Rs). J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2015; 54(2): 198–208.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gulin JE, Rocco DM, García-Bournissen F. Quality of reporting and adherence to ARRIVE guidelines in animal studies for Chagas disease preclinical drug research: a systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2015; 9(11): e0004194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tannenbaum J, Bennett BT. Russell and Burch’s 3Rs then and now: the need for clarity in definition and purpose. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2015; 54(2): 120–132.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Graham ML, Prescott MJ. The multifactorial role of the 3Rs in shifting the harm-benefit analysis in animal models of disease. Eur J Pharmacol 2015; 759: 19–29.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Liu Y, Zhao X, Mai Y, Li X, Wang J, Chen L, Mu J, Jin G, Gou H, Sun W, Feng Y. Adherence to ARRIVE guidelines in Chinese journal reports on neoplasms in animals. PloS one 2016; 11(5): e0154657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim I Y, Shin JH, Seong JK. Mouse phenogenomics, toolbox for functional annotation of human genome. BMB Rep 2010; 43(2): 79–90.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Prattis S, Jurjus A. Spontaneous and transgenic rodent models of inflammatory bowel disease. Lab Anim Res 2015; 31(2): 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. National Research Council. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals: National Academies Press; 2010. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12910.html.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bryant FB. Enhancing predictive accuracy and reproducibility in clinical evaluation research: Commentary on the special section of the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2016; 22(6): 829–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hossenfelder S. Science needs reason to be trusted. Nature Physics 2017; 13(4): 316–317.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mullane K, Williams M. Enhancing reproducibility: failures from reproducibility initiatives underline core challenges. Biochem Pharmacol 2017; 138: 7–18.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Baker D, Lidster K, Sottomayor A, Amor S. Two years later: journals are not yet enforcing the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting standards for pre-clinical animal studies. PLoS Biol 2014; 12(1): e1001756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Je-Kyung Seong or Hoon-Gi Kim.

Rights and permissions

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://doi.org/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nam, MH., Chun, MS., Seong, JK. et al. Ensuring reproducibility and ethics in animal experiments reporting in Korea using the ARRIVE guideline. Lab Anim Res 34, 11–19 (2018). https://doi.org/10.5625/lar.2018.34.1.11

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.5625/lar.2018.34.1.11

Keywords

  • Animal experiments
  • ARRIVE guideline
  • reproducibility crisis
  • 3R’s principle