一项旨在提高ARRIVE指南依从性的干预措施的随机对照试验(IICARus)。

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS
Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2019-06-12 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3
Kaitlyn Hair, Malcolm R Macleod, Emily S Sena
{"title":"一项旨在提高ARRIVE指南依从性的干预措施的随机对照试验(IICARus)。","authors":"Kaitlyn Hair,&nbsp;Malcolm R Macleod,&nbsp;Emily S Sena","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines are widely endorsed but compliance is limited. We sought to determine whether journal-requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist improves full compliance with the guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a randomised controlled trial, manuscripts reporting in vivo animal research submitted to PLOS ONE (March-June 2015) were randomly allocated to either requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist or current standard practice. Authors, academic editors, and peer reviewers were blinded to group allocation. Trained reviewers performed outcome adjudication in duplicate by assessing manuscripts against an operationalised version of the ARRIVE guidelines that consists 108 items. Our primary outcome was the between-group differences in the proportion of manuscripts meeting all ARRIVE guideline checklist subitems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We randomised 1689 manuscripts (control: <i>n</i> = 844, intervention: <i>n</i> = 845), of which 1269 were sent for peer review and 762 (control: <i>n</i> = 340; intervention: <i>n</i> = 332) accepted for publication. No manuscript in either group achieved full compliance with the ARRIVE checklist. Details of animal husbandry (ARRIVE subitem 9b) was the only subitem to show improvements in reporting, with the proportion of compliant manuscripts rising from 52.1 to 74.1% (<i>X</i> <sup>2</sup> = 34.0, df = 1, <i>p</i> = 2.1 × 10<sup>-7</sup>) in the control and intervention groups, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results suggest that altering the editorial process to include requests for a completed ARRIVE checklist is not enough to improve compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines. Other approaches, such as more stringent editorial policies or a targeted approach on key quality items, may promote improvements in reporting.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3","citationCount":"100","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus).\",\"authors\":\"Kaitlyn Hair,&nbsp;Malcolm R Macleod,&nbsp;Emily S Sena\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines are widely endorsed but compliance is limited. We sought to determine whether journal-requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist improves full compliance with the guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a randomised controlled trial, manuscripts reporting in vivo animal research submitted to PLOS ONE (March-June 2015) were randomly allocated to either requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist or current standard practice. Authors, academic editors, and peer reviewers were blinded to group allocation. Trained reviewers performed outcome adjudication in duplicate by assessing manuscripts against an operationalised version of the ARRIVE guidelines that consists 108 items. Our primary outcome was the between-group differences in the proportion of manuscripts meeting all ARRIVE guideline checklist subitems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We randomised 1689 manuscripts (control: <i>n</i> = 844, intervention: <i>n</i> = 845), of which 1269 were sent for peer review and 762 (control: <i>n</i> = 340; intervention: <i>n</i> = 332) accepted for publication. No manuscript in either group achieved full compliance with the ARRIVE checklist. Details of animal husbandry (ARRIVE subitem 9b) was the only subitem to show improvements in reporting, with the proportion of compliant manuscripts rising from 52.1 to 74.1% (<i>X</i> <sup>2</sup> = 34.0, df = 1, <i>p</i> = 2.1 × 10<sup>-7</sup>) in the control and intervention groups, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results suggest that altering the editorial process to include requests for a completed ARRIVE checklist is not enough to improve compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines. Other approaches, such as more stringent editorial policies or a targeted approach on key quality items, may promote improvements in reporting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3\",\"citationCount\":\"100\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 100

摘要

背景:ARRIVE(动物研究:体内实验报告)指南得到了广泛认可,但合规性有限。我们试图确定期刊要求完成ARRIVE检查表是否能提高对指南的完全遵守。方法:在一项随机对照试验中,将提交给PLOS ONE(2015年3月至6月)的报告体内动物研究的手稿随机分配给要求完成ARRIVE检查表或当前标准实践。作者、学术编辑和同行评审对小组分配视而不见。经过培训的评审员通过对照由108个项目组成的ARRIVE指南的操作版本评估手稿,重复进行结果裁决。我们的主要结果是符合ARRIVE指南检查表所有子项目的手稿比例的组间差异。结果:我们对1689份手稿(对照组:n= 844,干预:n= 845),其中1269份被送往同行评审,762份(对照:n= 340;干预:n= 332)。任何一组的手稿都没有完全符合ARRIVE检查表。畜牧业细节(ARRIVE子项目9b)是唯一一个报告有所改进的子项目,合规手稿的比例从52.1%上升到74.1%(X2=34.0,df = 1,p= 2.1 × 10-7)。结论:这些结果表明,改变编辑流程以包括对完整ARRIVE检查表的要求不足以提高对ARRIVE指南的遵守程度。其他方法,如更严格的编辑政策或对关键质量项目采取有针对性的方法,可能会促进报告的改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus).

A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus).

A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus).

A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus).

Background: The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines are widely endorsed but compliance is limited. We sought to determine whether journal-requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist improves full compliance with the guidelines.

Methods: In a randomised controlled trial, manuscripts reporting in vivo animal research submitted to PLOS ONE (March-June 2015) were randomly allocated to either requested completion of an ARRIVE checklist or current standard practice. Authors, academic editors, and peer reviewers were blinded to group allocation. Trained reviewers performed outcome adjudication in duplicate by assessing manuscripts against an operationalised version of the ARRIVE guidelines that consists 108 items. Our primary outcome was the between-group differences in the proportion of manuscripts meeting all ARRIVE guideline checklist subitems.

Results: We randomised 1689 manuscripts (control: n = 844, intervention: n = 845), of which 1269 were sent for peer review and 762 (control: n = 340; intervention: n = 332) accepted for publication. No manuscript in either group achieved full compliance with the ARRIVE checklist. Details of animal husbandry (ARRIVE subitem 9b) was the only subitem to show improvements in reporting, with the proportion of compliant manuscripts rising from 52.1 to 74.1% (X 2 = 34.0, df = 1, p = 2.1 × 10-7) in the control and intervention groups, respectively.

Conclusions: These results suggest that altering the editorial process to include requests for a completed ARRIVE checklist is not enough to improve compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines. Other approaches, such as more stringent editorial policies or a targeted approach on key quality items, may promote improvements in reporting.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信