OBJECTIVE: In recent years, there are several systematic reviews published on animal experiments of Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) guidelines provide a guarantee for significantly improving the reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analysis (MAs) to a certain extent; however, there are still certain defects found in the quality of SRs/MAs of animal experiments of TCM. It has been found that especially, the descriptions of the rationale and animal characteristics of TCM interventions are inadequate. As a result, we have developed a novel reporting guideline for SRs/MAs of animal experimental in the field of TCM (PRISMA-ATCM) to overcome these problems.
METHODS: PRISMA-ATCM reporting guidelines were formed by analyzing both the status and quality of published SRs/MAs of animal experiments and consulting experts in the related fields, and then by Delphi consultation, consensus meeting and revision.
RESULTS: Among the 27 items on the PRISMA checklist, Title (1), Structured summary (2), Rationale (3), Objectives (4), Protocol and registration (5), Eligibility criteria (6), Data items (11), Planned methods of analysis (14), Study characteristics (18), Summary of evidence (24), Limitations (25), and Funding (27) have been extensively revised and expanded, to specifically include the details about TCM intervention and animal characteristics. In addition, illustrative examples and explanations have been provided for each item.
CONCLUSIONS: PRISMA-ATCM could markedly improve the quality SRs/MAs of animal experiments in the field of TCM.

Preclinical research within the area of urethral tissue engineering has not yet been successfully translated into an efficient therapeutic option for patients. This gap could be attributed, in part, to inadequate design and reporting of the studies employing laboratory animals. In this study, a systematic review was conducted to investigate the quality of reporting in preclinical studies utilizing tissue engineering approaches for urethral repair. The scope was on studies performed in rabbits, published between January 2014 and March 2020. Quality assessment of the data was conducted according to the Animal Research: Reporting of in Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines by the scoring of a 38-item checklist in different categories. A total of 28 articles that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included in the study. The range of ARRIVE score was from 0 to 100, taking into consideration having reported the item in question or not. The mean checklist score was 53%. The items that attained the highest scores included the number of animals utilized, the size of control and experimental groups, and the definition of experimental outcomes. The least frequently reported items included the data regarding the experimental procedure, housing and husbandry, determination and justification of the number of animals, and reporting of adverse events. Surprisingly, full disclosure about ethical guidelines and animal protocol approval was missing in 54% of the studies. No paper stated the sample size estimation. Overall, our study found that a large number of studies display inadequate reporting of fundamental information and that the quality of reporting improved marginally over the study period. We encourage a comprehensive implementation of the ARRIVE guidelines in animal studies exploring tissue engineering for urethral repair, not only to facilitate effective translation of preclinical research findings into clinical therapies, but also to ensure compliance with ethical principles and to minimize unnecessary animal studies.

BACKGROUND: In view of the inadequacy and incompleteness of currently-reported animal experiments and their overall poor quality, we retrospectively evaluated the reporting quality of animal experiments published in Chinese journals adhering to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines.
RESULTS: The databases CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM were searched from inception until July 2018. Two appropriately-trained reviewers screened and extracted articles independently. The ARRIVE guidelines were used to assess the quality of the published reports of animal experiments. The compliance rate of every item was analyzed relative to their date of publication. A total of 4342 studies were included, of which 73.0% had been cited ≤5 times. Only 29.0% (1261/4342) were published in journals listed in the Chinese Science Citation Database. The results indicate that the compliance rate of approximately half of the sub-items (51.3%, 20/39) was less than 50%, of which 65.0% (13/20) was even less than 10%.
CONCLUSIONS: The reporting quality of animal experiments in Chinese journals is not at a high level. Following publication of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010, the compliance rate of the majority of its requirements has improved to some extent. However, less attention has been paid to the ethics and welfare of experimental animals, and a number of specific items in the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections continue to not be reported in sufficient detail. Therefore, it is necessary to popularize the ARRIVE guidelines, advocate researchers to adhere to them in the future, and in particular promote the use of the guidelines in specialized journals in order that the design, implementation, and reporting of animal experiments is promoted, to ultimately improve their quality.

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.

There is widespread concern about the quality, reproducibility and translatability of studies involving research animals. Although there are a number of reporting guidelines available, there is very little overarching guidance on how to plan animal experiments, despite the fact that this is the logical place to start ensuring quality. In this paper we present the PREPARE guidelines: Planning Research and Experimental Procedures on Animals: Recommendations for Excellence. PREPARE covers the three broad areas which determine the quality of the preparation for animal studies: formulation, dialogue between scientists and the animal facility, and quality control of the various components in the study. Some topics overlap and the PREPARE checklist should be adapted to suit specific needs, for example in field research. Advice on use of the checklist is available on the Norecopa website, with links to guidelines for animal research and testing, at https://norecopa.no/PREPARE .