Reporting of 3Rs Approaches in Preclinical Animal Experimental Studies—A Nationwide Study

SIMPLE SUMMARY: In society, there is a solid demand to limit the number of animals used in research, improve the animals’ living conditions, and find alternatives to animal experiments. “The 3Rs” is a concept that aims to reduce, refine, and replace animal experiments. It is embedded in legislation worldwide. Even so, finding 3Rs ideas relevant to one’s own research area may be difficult. Recent studies showed that 3Rs approaches from fellow researchers are a popular way to obtain ideas. In this nationwide study, we investigated if 3Rs approaches were reported and described in primary preclinical animal experimental literature. If so, this may be an easy route to access readily available 3Rs ideas and comply with legislation, public demand, and ethical obligations. Our results, however, show that minimal 3Rs information is reported in these studies, which had at least one author affiliated to a Danish university. The level of information varies and is insufficient to learn and implement relevant 3Rs approaches in one’s research. Instead, 3R-specific education and research are needed, and funders should support such research. ABSTRACT: The 3Rs aim to refine animal welfare, reduce animal numbers, and replace animal experiments. Investigations disclose that researchers are positive towards 3Rs recommendations from peers. Communication of 3Rs approaches via primary preclinical animal experimental literature may become a fast-forward extension to learn relevant 3Rs approaches if such are reported. This study investigates 3Rs-reporting in peer-reviewed preclinical animal research with at least one author affiliated to a Danish university. Using a systematic search and random sampling, we included 500 studies from 2009 and 2018. Reporting was low and improvement over time limited. A word search for 3R retrieved zero results in 2009 and 3.2% in 2018. Reporting on 3Rs-related sentences increased from 6.4% in 2009 to 18.4% in 2018, “reduction” increased from 2.4% to 8.0%, and “refinement” from 5.2% to 14.4%. Replacement was not reported. Reporting of the methodology was missing. For “reduction”, methodology was mentioned in one study in 2009 and 11 studies in 2018, and for “refinement” in 9 and 21, respectively. Twenty-one studies stated compliance with ARRIVE-guidelines or similar without disclosure of details. Reporting of 3Rs approaches in preclinical publications is currently insufficient to guide researchers. Other strategies, e.g., education, interdisciplinary collaboration, and 3Rs funding initiatives, are needed.