Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22877315›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI research2012

Anaesthesia and physiological monitoring during in vivo imaging of laboratory rodents: considerations on experimental outcomes and animal welfare.

Jordi L Tremoleda, Angela Kerton, Willy Gsell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

76 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Metabolic Differences in Neuroimaging with [Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. What to consider for ECG in mice-with special emphasis on telemetry.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2023
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jordi L TremoledaBiological Imaging Centre (BIC), Medical Research Council (MRC) Clinical Science Centre, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Cyclotron Building, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK. jordi.lopez-tremoleda@imperial.ac.uk.
Angela Kerton
Willy Gsell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The implementation of imaging technologies has dramatically increased the efficiency of preclinical studies, enabling a powerful, non-invasive and clinically translatable way for monitoring disease progression in real time and testing new therapies. The ability to image live animals is one of the most important advantages of these technologies. However, this also represents an important challenge as, in contrast to human studies, imaging of animals generally requires anaesthesia to restrain the animals and their gross motion. Anaesthetic agents have a profound effect on the physiology of the animal and may thereby confound the image data acquired. It is therefore necessary to select the appropriate anaesthetic regime and to implement suitable systems for monitoring anaesthetised animals during image acquisition. In addition, repeated anaesthesia required for longitudinal studies, the exposure of ionising radiations and the use of contrast agents and/or imaging biomarkers may also have consequences on the physiology of the animal and its response to anaesthesia, which need to be considered while monitoring the animals during imaging studies. We will review the anaesthesia protocols and monitoring systems commonly used during imaging of laboratory rodents. A variety of imaging modalities are used for imaging rodents, including magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, single photon emission computed tomography, high frequency ultrasound and optical imaging techniques such as bioluminescence and fluorescence imaging. While all these modalities are implemented for non-invasive in vivo imaging, there are certain differences in terms of animal handling and preparation, how the monitoring systems are implemented and, importantly, how the imaging procedures themselves can affect mammalian physiology. The most important and critical adverse effects of anaesthetic agents are depression of respiration, cardiovascular system disruption and thermoregulation. When anaesthetising rodents, one must carefully consider if these adverse effects occur at the therapeutic dose required for anaesthesia, if they are likely to affect the image acquisitions and, importantly, if they compromise the well-being of the animals. We will review how these challenges can be successfully addressed through an appropriate understanding of anaesthetic protocols and the implementation of adequate physiological monitoring systems.

Identifiers

PMID22877315
PMCPMC3467189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.