Background/Aims: Multiple rapid swallows (MRS) is a provocative test during high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) to evaluate contraction reserve (CR). This study aims to determine the prevalence of CR in patients with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and MRS performed in the upright position, and to assess the ideal number of MRS sequences. Methods: We enrolled adult patients diagnosed with IEM according to the Chicago classification version 4.0 who underwent HRM with 3 MRS sequences. Presence of CR was identified as either: the distal contraction integral (DCI) of the post-MRS sequence exceeding the mean DCI of single swallows (ratio > 1) or the mean DCI of the 3 post-MRS sequences surpassing the mean DCI of single swallows. The occurrence of CR was compared following 1, 2, and 3 MRS sequences. Results: When assessing CR in 57 patients referenced to mean single supine swallow DCI, the pooled prevalence of CR following 1, 2, and 3 MRS sequences was 23/57 (40.4%), 31/57 (54.4%), and 33/57 (57.9%), respectively. More patients had CR after 2 MRS sequences compared to 1 (P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in CR between 2 and 3 MRS sequences (P = 0.160). More patients had CR after 2 (P = 0.013) and 3 MRS sequences (P = 0.034) when CR was referenced to single upright compared to single supine swallows. Conclusion Among patients with IEM, 58.0% had CR after 3 upright MRS sequences and 2 were adequate to assess CR.

Background/Aims: Multiple rapid swallows (MRS) is a provocative test during high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) to evaluate contraction reserve (CR). This study aims to determine the prevalence of CR in patients with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and MRS performed in the upright position, and to assess the ideal number of MRS sequences. Methods: We enrolled adult patients diagnosed with IEM according to the Chicago classification version 4.0 who underwent HRM with 3 MRS sequences. Presence of CR was identified as either: the distal contraction integral (DCI) of the post-MRS sequence exceeding the mean DCI of single swallows (ratio > 1) or the mean DCI of the 3 post-MRS sequences surpassing the mean DCI of single swallows. The occurrence of CR was compared following 1, 2, and 3 MRS sequences. Results: When assessing CR in 57 patients referenced to mean single supine swallow DCI, the pooled prevalence of CR following 1, 2, and 3 MRS sequences was 23/57 (40.4%), 31/57 (54.4%), and 33/57 (57.9%), respectively. More patients had CR after 2 MRS sequences compared to 1 (P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in CR between 2 and 3 MRS sequences (P = 0.160). More patients had CR after 2 (P = 0.013) and 3 MRS sequences (P = 0.034) when CR was referenced to single upright compared to single supine swallows. Conclusion Among patients with IEM, 58.0% had CR after 3 upright MRS sequences and 2 were adequate to assess CR.

Background/Aims: Multiple rapid swallows (MRS) is a provocative test during high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) to evaluate contraction reserve (CR). This study aims to determine the prevalence of CR in patients with ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and MRS performed in the upright position, and to assess the ideal number of MRS sequences. Methods: We enrolled adult patients diagnosed with IEM according to the Chicago classification version 4.0 who underwent HRM with 3 MRS sequences. Presence of CR was identified as either: the distal contraction integral (DCI) of the post-MRS sequence exceeding the mean DCI of single swallows (ratio > 1) or the mean DCI of the 3 post-MRS sequences surpassing the mean DCI of single swallows. The occurrence of CR was compared following 1, 2, and 3 MRS sequences. Results: When assessing CR in 57 patients referenced to mean single supine swallow DCI, the pooled prevalence of CR following 1, 2, and 3 MRS sequences was 23/57 (40.4%), 31/57 (54.4%), and 33/57 (57.9%), respectively. More patients had CR after 2 MRS sequences compared to 1 (P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in CR between 2 and 3 MRS sequences (P = 0.160). More patients had CR after 2 (P = 0.013) and 3 MRS sequences (P = 0.034) when CR was referenced to single upright compared to single supine swallows. Conclusion Among patients with IEM, 58.0% had CR after 3 upright MRS sequences and 2 were adequate to assess CR.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research results is a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting of the research process enables readers to evaluate the reliability of the research results and further explore the experiment by repeating it or building upon its findings. The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, released in 2019 by the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), provide a checklist that is applicable to any in vivo animal research report. These guidelines aim to improve the standardization of experimental design, implementation, and reporting, as well as enhance the reliability, repeatability, and clinical translation of animal experimental results. The use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines not only enriches the details of animal experimental research reports, ensuring that information on animal experimental results is fully evaluated and utilized, but also enables readers to understand the content expressed by the author accurately and clearly, promoting the transparency and completeness of the fundamental research review process. At present, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines have been widely adopted by international biomedical journals. This article is based on the best practices following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international journals, and it interprets, explains, and elaborates in Chinese the fifth part of the comprehensive version of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines published in PLoS Biology in 2020 (the original text can be found at https://arriveguidelines.org). This section includes the items 6-11 of Recommended 11 section, covering "Animal Care and Monitoring", "Interpretation/Scientific Implications", "Generalisability/Translation", "Protocol Registration", "Data Access" and "Declaration of Interests". Its aim is to promote a comprehensive understanding and use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines among domestic researchers, to enhance the standardization of experimental animal research and reporting, and to promote high-quality development of experimental animal sciences and comparative medicine research in China.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research results is a major challenge.Transparent and accurate reporting of the research process enables readers to evaluate the reliability of the research results and further explore the experiment by repeating it or building upon its findings. The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, released in 2019 by the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), provide a checklist applicable to any in vivo animal research report. These guidelines aim to improve the standardization of experimental design, implementation, and reporting, as well as the reliability, repeatability, and clinical translatability of animal experimental results. The use of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines not only enriches the details of animal experimental research reports, ensuring that information on animal experimental results is fully evaluated and utilized, but also enables readers to understand the content expressed by the author accurately and clearly, promoting the transparency and integrity of the fundamental research review process. At present, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines have been widely adopted by international biomedical journals. This article is a Chinese translation based on the best practices of international journals following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international journals, specifically for the complete interpretation of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines published in the PLoS Biology journal in 2020 (original text can be found at https://arriveguidelines.org). The fourth part of the article includes the items 1-5 of ARRIVE 2.0 Recommended 11 section, which covers "Abstract" "Background" "Objectives" "Ethical statement" and "Housing and husbandry". Its aim is to promote the full understanding and use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines by domestic researchers, enhance the standardization of experimental animal research and reporting, and promote the high-quality development of experimental animal technology and comparative medicine research in China.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research results is a major challenge.Researchers reporting their research process transparently and accurately can help readers evaluate the reliability of the research results and further explore the experiment by repeating it or building upon its findings. The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, released in 2019 by the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), provide a checklist applicable to any in vivo animal research report. These guidelines aim to improve the standardization of experimental design, implementation, and reporting, as well as the reliability, repeatability, and clinical translatability of animal experimental results. The use of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines not only enriches the details of animal experimental research reports, ensuring that information on animal experimental results is fully evaluated and utilized, but also enables readers to understand the content expressed by the author accurately and clearly, promoting the transparency and integrity of the fundamental research review process. At present, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines have been widely adopted by international biomedical journals. This article is a Chinese translation based on the best practices of international journals following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international journals, specifically for the complete interpretation of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines published in the PLoS Biology journal in 2020 (original text can be found at https://arriveguidelines.org). The third part of the article includes the items 8-10 of ARRIVE 2.0 Essential 10, which covers "experimental animals" "experimental procedures" and "results". Its aim is to promote the full understanding and use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines by domestic researchers, enhance the standardization of experimental animal research and reporting, and promote the high-quality development of experimental animal technology and comparative medicine research in China.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research results remains a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting of progress can help readers evaluate the reliability of research results and further explore an experiment by repeating or building upon its findings. The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, released in 2019 by the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), provide a checklist applicable to any in vivo animal research report. These guidelines aim to improve the standardization of experimental design, implementation, and reporting, as well as the reliability, repeatability, and clinical translatability of animal experimental results. The use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines not only enriches the details of animal experimental research reports, ensuring that information on animal experimental results is fully evaluated and utilized, but also enables readers to understand the content expressed by the author accurately and clearly, promoting the transparency and integrity of the fundamental research review process. At present, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines have been widely adopted by international biomedical journals. This article is the second part of the Chinese translation of the complete interpretation of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines published in PLoS Biology in 2020 (original text can be found at https://arriveguidelines.org) and based on the best practices for following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international journals. This part includes Items 4-7 of "ARRIVE Essential 10" in the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines: "Randomization", "Blinding", "Outcome Measurement", and "Statistical Methods". Our Chinese translated version aims to promote the full understanding and use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines by domestic researchers, enhancing the standardization of experimental animal research and reporting, and promoting the high-quality development of experimental animal technology and comparative medicine research in China.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research results is a major challenge. Researchers reporting their research process transparently and accurately can help readers evaluate the reliability of the research results and further explore the experiment by repeating it or building upon its findings. The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, released in 2019 by the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), provide a checklist applicable to any in vivo animal research report. These guidelines aim to improve the standardization of experimental design, implementation, and reporting, as well as the reliability, repeatability, and clinical translatability of animal experimental results. The use of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines not only enriches the details of animal experimental research reports, ensuring that information on animal experimental results is fully evaluated and utilized, but also enables readers to understand the content expressed by the author accurately and clearly, promoting the transparency and integrity of the fundamental research review process. At present, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines have been widely adopted by international biomedical journals. this article is a Chinese translation based on the best practices of international journals following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international journals, specifically for the complete interpretation of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines published in the PLoS Biology journal in 2020 (original text can be found at https://arriveguidelines.org). The first part of the article includes the preface and the "Key 10" section, which covers "study design" "sample size" and "inclusion and exclusion criteria". Its aim is to promote the full understanding and use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines by domestic researchers, enhance the standardization of experimental animal research and reporting, and promote the high-quality development of experimental animal technology and comparative medicine research in China.

Animal experiments play an important role in the process of biomedical research, and is a necessary way to transform basic medicine into clinical medicine. The standardization of animal experimental studies and reports determines the reliability and reproducibility of research results, and is also the key to transforming the results of animal experiments into clinical trials. In view of how to design and implement animal experiments, write animal experiment reports, and publish relevant academic papers in a more standardized way, LACM (Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine) has launched a new column of comparative medical research and reporting standards from 2023, focusing on the introduction and interpretation of international general norms related to laboratory animal and comparative medicine, such as ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments). This article focuses on the development and application, basic content and priority of ARRIVE 2.0, as well as the scheme of implementing ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international biomedical journals, and explains the current situation and future plans of LACM following ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. The research and report of animal experimental medicine following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines and other international norms is one of the important driving forces to promote the high-quality development of experimental animal science and biomedicine in China, and also a powerful means to implement the 3R principle and improve the welfare of laboratory animals. Through this article, we hope the majority of scientific researchers and editors will attach great importance and actively implement these international standards.