Dental implants and bone augmentation are among dentistry\'s most prevalent surgical treatments; hence, many dental implant surfaces and bone grafts have been researched to improve bone response. Such new materials were radiologically, histologically, and histomorphometrically evaluated on animals before being used on humans. As a result, several studies used animals to evaluate novel implant technologies, biocompatibility, surgical techniques, and osseointegration strategies, as preclinical research on animal models is essential to evaluate bioactive principles (on cells, compounds, and implants) that can act through multiple mechanisms and to predict animal behavior, which is difficult to predict from in vitro studies alone. In this study, we critically reviewed all research on different animal models investigating the osseointegration degree of new implant surfaces, reporting different species used in the osseointegration research over the last 30 years. Moreover, this is the first study to summarize reviews on the main animal models used in the translational research of osseointegration, including the advantages and limitations of each model and determining the ideal location for investigating osseointegration in small and large animal models. Overall, each model has advantages and disadvantages; hence, animal selection should be based on the cost of acquisition, animal care, acceptability to society, availability, tolerance to captivity, and housing convenience. Among small animal models, rabbits are an ideal model for biological observations around implants, and it is worth noting that osseointegration was discovered in the rabbit model and successfully applied to humans.

UNASSIGNED: Chaihu-Shugan-San (CSS) is a traditional Chinese medicine formula employed to treat depression. We aim to conduct a reporting quality assessment and risk of bias evaluation of animal research on CSS for depression.
UNASSIGNED: To acquire eligible studies, two reviewers searched plentiful databases from inception to October 23rd, 2021. Reporting quality assessment and risk of bias assessment of the included animal studies were evaluated by using Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines and the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: The initial search identified 720 records, while only 30 studies were included. The result of the reporting quality assessment was inferior, items 17 and 19 were not reported at all. The details of five items (items 3, 6, 7, 10, and 18) were not reported. The outcome of the risk of bias assessment suggested that half of the entries (5/10) displayed an unclear risk of bias and a high risk of bias. Blinding with regard to performance bias and detection bias revealed an unclear risk of bias (100%), followed by baseline characteristics (76.67%) and sequence generation (60%). Random outcome assessment showed a high risk of bias (100%).
UNASSIGNED: The included animal studies exhibited methodological defects and imprecise reporting. Hence, the ARRIVE guidelines and SYRCLE\'s RoB tool should be disseminated among basic medical researchers examining CSS for depression to publish studies with low risk of bias and sufficient reporting so that the animal research can promptly be transformed into clinical research.

Animal models continue to be used to investigate cartilage repair strategies. Adequate anaesthesia and pain management are essential in order to guarantee acceptable animal welfare as well as reproducible experimental results. This systematic review evaluates reporting of anaesthesia and pain management in surgical large animal models (horse, pig, dog, goat and sheep) of (osteo)chondral repair. Manuscripts published between 2015 and 2020 were included after a comprehensive search strategy. Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics and qualitative review. Out of 223 eligible studies, 220 studies contained incomplete information on anaesthetic and pain management. Pre-, intra- and post-operative analgesia were not mentioned in 68%, 94%, and 64% of manuscripts respectively. A total of 176 studies reported that animals underwent general anaesthesia during surgery. Surprisingly, 30% of these articles did not provide any detail on anaesthetic management, while 37% reported using inhalant, hypnotic or sedative drugs only, without mention of analgesics. Pain monitoring was not reported in 87% of manuscripts. The vast majority of preclinical large animal studies on cartilage repair did not meet veterinary clinical standards for anaesthesia and analgesia, and failed to report according to the ARRIVE international guidelines. In light of serious welfare, ethical and translational validity concerns, improvement is urgently needed.

Telemetric monitoring is used in many scientific fields, such as cardiovascular research, neurology, endocrinology, as well as animal welfare research. Nowadays, implanted electrocardiogram (ECG) radiotelemetry units are the gold standard for monitoring ECG traces, heart rate and heart rate variability in freely moving mice. Telemetry technology can be a valuable tool when studies utilize it adequately, while prioritizing animal welfare. Recently, concerns have been raised in many research fields, including animal research, regarding the reproducibility of research findings, with insufficient reporting being one of the underlying causes.A systematic review was performed by making use of three literature databases, in order to include all publications until 31.12.2019, where the surgical placing of ECG recording telemetry devices in adult mice was involved. Data extracted from the publications included selected items recommended by the ARRIVE guidelines. We focused on aspects related to the refinement of the surgery and experimental conditions that aim to improve animal welfare. In general, the quality of reporting was low in the analyzed 234 publications. Based on our analyses, we assume there has been no improvement in this field\'s reporting quality since 2010 when the ARRIVE guidelines on reporting were introduced. Additionally, even though expert recommendations on telemetry surgery refinement have been available since many years now, no increase in uptake (or reporting) of these measures prior (e.g., acclimatization), during (e.g., asepsis) or after (e.g., social housing) the surgery could be observed.

Dogs are the experimental model in many types of biomedical research. Each year, hundreds of publications report the use of dogs in invasive biomedical procedures, often without sufficient explanation of the purpose and justification for selecting dog as the experimental model. The European Union requires detailed reporting of animal use that includes research purpose, but animal use reporting in the United States, overseen by the USDA, does not require this information. The ability to replace dogs with alternative models begins by understanding how they are used. Therefore, this study was undertaken to investigate the types of invasive biomedical procedures that dogs are subjected to in US laboratories. Well-defined sets of research publications and grants were accessed to obtain information on the types of biomedical research using dogs. USDA databases provided additional information. An ontology to categorize biomedical research uses of dogs identified the most common as translational studies for cardiovascular, cancer, nervous/mental, and musculoskeletal disorders. Information typically reported for experimental animals was sometimes missing or incomplete in publications, including number, source, and fate of dogs; species justification; and pain management, suggesting that many journals have not adopted the ARRIVE guidelines on animal use reporting. It was not possible to identify the research purpose for all dogs used by US institutions because a) not all dog use is published and b) animal research purpose is not required reporting in the US. These findings should be informative to future initiatives to replace, reduce, and refine the use of dogs in research.

Since the inaugural issue of ATLA, many changes within publishing have occurred, impacting when, where, and how researchers conduct literature searches for non-animal alternatives. Such changes include increased rate of growth in scientific publications, greater number of databases and online resources available to search, opportunities for open and almost immediate dissemination of research outputs such as preprints and method protocols, and the development of reporting guidelines for animal research. Here we offer a librarian\'s perspective on these changes and advice on how to manage them to enable robust and diverse alternatives to be implemented in future research.

OBJECTIVE: Research papers involving animal studies often display poor reporting standards, leading to lower study reproducibility. We aim to determine the difference in reporting animal studies regarding abdominal wall hernia repair with mesh placement, before and after the publication of ARRIVE-2010 (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. Furthermore, we aim to present the most up-to-date reporting quality using the updated ARRIVE-2020 as criteria.
METHODS: All animal studies concerning hernia repair with meshes were systematically searched. Articles published in the 5 years leading up to the ARRIVE-2010 (pre-ARRIVE) and articles within the last 5 years until the updated ARRIVE 2.0 (post-ARRIVE) were compared for overall species and specific species separately. Articles published last year were evaluated for presenting fully reported (sub)items.
RESULTS: The number of fully reported (sub)items per article was on average significantly higher for pre-ARRIVE than post-ARRIVE for overall species (mean (SD) = 14.0 (2.8) vs. 12.6 (2.5), P < 0.001). The same applies to rabbit (mean (SD) = 14.8 (2.6) vs. 12.6 (2.6), P = 0.001) and pig studies (mean (SD) = 14.5 (2.7) vs. 11.6 (2.6), P = 0.004), with no significance in rat studies (mean (SD) = 13.6 (2.9) vs. 12.9 (2.3), P = 0.076). Significance was found in several (sub)items between pre-ARRIVE and post-ARRIVE (n = 7, 3, 8, and 3 for overall species, rat, rabbit, and pig studies, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: General reporting quality of animal experiments has been improved markedly by ARRIVE guidelines. However, more improvements are required considering the arrival of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines.

The quality of animal experiments in terms of appropriate reporting is a concern, particularly with regard to their validity and the recording of the measures taken to reduce various types of bias. A systematic survey of 1371 and 236 publications from India and Sri Lanka, respectively, which were published between 1905 and 2017 and indexed in NCBI-PubMed, Cinhal, MEDLINE and Scopus, was carried out. The level of detail in the descriptions of animals used and the measures taken to reduce bias were analysed in each article. Selected parameters from the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, such as age, weight, sex, sample size calculation, blinding and randomisation were considered. The findings revealed poor reporting standards in animal experiments carried out in India and Sri Lanka, confirming the limited impact of the ARRIVE guidelines. These findings emphasise the urgent need for improvements in the peer review process, both prior to a study being set up and in the post-study reporting phase, and for more stringent adherence to the ARRIVE guidelines in the reporting of animal experiments.

The concerns about reproducibility and validity of animal studies are partly related to poor experimental design and reporting. Here, we undertook a scoping review of the literature to determine the extent and quality of reporting of animal studies on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Online databases were searched to identify 567 relevant original articles published between 1979 and 2018. These were analyzed with respect to bibliographic parameters and general aspects of animal experimentation. A subgroup of 120 studies was analyzed in detail in terms of the impact on the reporting quality of the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines for animal studies. The number of animal studies on PD increased continuously over the years with a thematic shift toward long-term preservation of the peritoneum as a dialyzing organ. There were significant deficiencies in research design with the lack of sample size estimation, randomization, and blinding being the commonest shortcomings. The description of animal numbers, housing conditions, use of medication, and statistical analysis was incomplete. The introduction in 2010 of the ARRIVE guidelines produced very little improvement in the completeness of reporting regardless of journal impact factor. The animal studies on PD suffer from deficits in experimental protocols and transparent reporting. These drawbacks need to be corrected to ensure high-quality and much-needed animal research in PD.

Over the last two decades, pigs have become animal biomodels widely used for the investigation and practice of surgical techniques because of their great physiological and anatomical similarities to humans. Even though many of these studies must be carried out later in humans, the description of basic information is limited, making exact repetitions of the reported experimental methods impossible. In this review, 108 studies from 2013 to 2018 were considered to determine the quality of adherence to the ARRIVE guidelines in the reports of the methodologies. The majority of the studies lacked the details recommended in the ARRIVE guidelines regarding data directly related to the welfare of animals undergoing surgery and those about anesthetic protocols and analgesics. Information related to sample size calculation and housing and husbandry conditions was also very limited. We believe that the ARRIVE guidelines are an excellent tool for good-quality reporting. We encourage scientists to consistently use them as a tool to improve the quality of their scientific reports and, consequently, ensure animal welfare.