Animal Research - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Animal Research

The Experts below are selected from a list of 311787 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Animal Research – Free Register to Access Experts & Abstracts

Ulrich Dirnagl – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting Animal Research
    PLoS biology, 2020
    Co-Authors: Nathalie Percie Du Sert, Viki Hurst, Amrita Ahluwalia, Sabina Alam, Marc T. Avey, Monya Baker, William J Browne, Alejandra Clark, Innes C. Cuthill, Ulrich Dirnagl

    Abstract:

    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 detail key information to include in any publication describing Animal Research. This Perspective article describes how the guidelines have been updated and reorganised to facilitate their use in practice.

  • The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting Animal Research.
    BMC veterinary research, 2020
    Co-Authors: Nathalie Percie Du Sert, Viki Hurst, Amrita Ahluwalia, Sabina Alam, Marc T. Avey, Monya Baker, William J Browne, Alejandra Clark, Innes C. Cuthill, Ulrich Dirnagl

    Abstract:

    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.
    British journal of pharmacology, 2020
    Co-Authors: Nathalie Percie Du Sert, Viki Hurst, Amrita Ahluwalia, Sabina Alam, Marc T. Avey, Monya Baker, William J Browne, Alejandra Clark, Innes C. Cuthill, Ulrich Dirnagl

    Abstract:

    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.

David Q. Beversdorf – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Attitudes Toward Animal Research Among Medical Students in the United States.
    Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 2020
    Co-Authors: David Q. Beversdorf, Nellie Adams

    Abstract:

    Prior to use in patients in the clinical setting, the safety, mechanism of action, and efficacy of new treatments must be established. This often requires testing new treatments in Animals. Public attitudes toward Animal Research have been investigated, but less is known about the attitudes of physicians. To begin to address this, we examined attitudes of medical students regarding Animal Research, and whether these attitudes were rigidly held. We surveyed US-based student members of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). Students were questioned regarding agreement or disagreement with a set of 14 positively- or negatively-biased statements regarding Animal Research. To determine if these attitudes were rigidly held, students viewed an educational video regarding Animals used in Research and repeated the survey immediately after the video. One hundred sixty-eight students completed the initial survey. A group attitude score was calculated based on agreement with 14 statements. Males and those with previous Research experience had a significantly more positive attitude toward Animal Research, but other variables had no effect. After viewing the video, 108 students repeated the survey. The overall attitude of respondents changed to be significantly more positive toward Animal Research. Of the 14 statements, attitudes toward 7 individual statements became significantly more positive after viewing the video. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine attitudes toward Animal Research among medical students. Overall, the group’s attitude toward Animal Research was more positive than negative. However, these negative attitudes do not appear to be rigidly held. These findings should be considered in the future of medical education curriculum development.

  • Attitudes Toward Animal Research Among Medical Students in the United States (S3.006)
    Neurology, 2016
    Co-Authors: David Q. Beversdorf, Nellie Adams

    Abstract:

    Background:
    For the process of development of new treatments for patients, there are many steps necessary to establish safety, mechanism of action, and efficacy before the new treatment can be used clinically. One of these steps involves testing in Animals. The attitude of medical professionals regarding this process is not known.
    Methods:
    We surveyed medical students in the United States that were members of the American Academy of Neurology regarding their attitudes towards Animal Research. Students were queried as to their agreement or disagreement with a set of 14 questions. Students were then presented an educational video regarding Animals in Research, and repeated the survey immediately following the viewing of the video.
    Results:
    168 students completed the initial survey. Among respondents to the first survey, 4.8[percnt] agreed with the statement ‘Animal Research cannot be justified and should be stopped’. 13.2[percnt] disagreed with the statement ‘New surgical procedures should be tested on Animals before they are used on people’, and 7.2[percnt] disagreed with ‘New drugs should be tested on Animals before they are used on people’. Those with previous Research experience had a significantly more positive attitude towards Animal Research, but years in medical training, diet (vegetarian vs nonvegetarian), pet ownership, farming experience, and rural vs urban upbringing did not impact attitudes towards Animal Research. 108 students repeated the survey after the video. After viewing the video, t-tests showed that the group’s overall attitude changed to be significantly more positive toward Animal Research, with the responses above decreasing to 0.9[percnt], 2.8[percnt], and 0.9[percnt] for the aforementioned statements.
    Conclusions:
    This is the first study to examine attitudes towards Animal Research among medical students. These findings should be considered in the future of medical education curriculum development. Disclosure: Dr. Beversdorf has nothing to disclose. Dr. Adams has nothing to disclose.

  • THE Animal Research WAR
    Neurology, 2009
    Co-Authors: David Q. Beversdorf

    Abstract:

    THE Animal Research WAR

    edited by P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker, 199 pp., Palgrave MacMillan, 2008, $35

    When I was in third grade, our class heard a presentation on biomedical Research. At the end of the class, I asked the teacher, “Why do we have to do Research on Animals?” She politely replied, “Well, would you rather they try out a new drug on your grandmother?” I said, “No.” She said, “Well, most people agree with you on that.” Ever since that day, I have understood the role of Animals in Research. Not everyone agrees with me on this. Unfortunately, some of the individuals who disagree utilize threats and even terrorism to emphasize those views. That is the topic of The Animal Research War by Drs. P. Michael Conn and James V. Parker. I will outline the facts contained in it, which were eye-opening for me, and demonstrate the gravity of the issues.

    The authors draw upon their own personal experiences as targets of Animal rightist attacks, and discuss similar activities that have occurred around the country and elsewhere in the world. The referencing is detailed, allowing the reader to confirm their sources. The authors start with a series of definitions important to the subsequent context of the book, followed by descriptions of several Animal rights activists, as they evolved from benign activities to increasingly aggressive tactics. The philosophical tenets of early authors opposed to Animal Research are then critiqued, including one of the earliest activist authors who proposed that we should only use Animals for Research if we would also be ready to use “marginal infants”—those who are …

Nathalie Percie Du Sert – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting Animal Research
    PLoS biology, 2020
    Co-Authors: Nathalie Percie Du Sert, Viki Hurst, Amrita Ahluwalia, Sabina Alam, Marc T. Avey, Monya Baker, William J Browne, Alejandra Clark, Innes C. Cuthill, Ulrich Dirnagl

    Abstract:

    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 detail key information to include in any publication describing Animal Research. This Perspective article describes how the guidelines have been updated and reorganised to facilitate their use in practice.

  • The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting Animal Research.
    BMC veterinary research, 2020
    Co-Authors: Nathalie Percie Du Sert, Viki Hurst, Amrita Ahluwalia, Sabina Alam, Marc T. Avey, Monya Baker, William J Browne, Alejandra Clark, Innes C. Cuthill, Ulrich Dirnagl

    Abstract:

    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.
    British journal of pharmacology, 2020
    Co-Authors: Nathalie Percie Du Sert, Viki Hurst, Amrita Ahluwalia, Sabina Alam, Marc T. Avey, Monya Baker, William J Browne, Alejandra Clark, Innes C. Cuthill, Ulrich Dirnagl

    Abstract:

    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.