Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25100208›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

The conditioned place preference test for assessing welfare consequences and potential refinements in a mouse bladder cancer model.

John V Roughan, Claire A Coulter, Paul A Flecknell, Huw D Thomas, Kenneth J Sufka

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Extract ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Behavioral Methods for Severity Assessment.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Development of a murine intravesical orthotopic human bladder cancer (mio-hBC) model.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2018
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

John V RoughanComparative Biology Centre, The Medical School, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Claire A CoulterComparative Biology Centre, The Medical School, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Paul A FlecknellComparative Biology Centre, The Medical School, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Huw D ThomasNorthern Institute for Cancer Research, The Medical School, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Kenneth J SufkaResearch Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Departments of Psychology and Pharmacology, Peabody Building, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, United States of America.
Newcastle University · GBUniversity of Mississippi · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most pre-clinical analgesic efficacy assays still involve nociceptive testing in rodents. This is despite concerns as to the relevance of these tests for evaluating the pain-preventative properties of drugs. More appropriate methods would target pain rather than nociception, but these are currently not available, so it remains unknown whether animal pain equates to the negatively affective and subjective/emotional state it causes in humans. Mouse cancer models are common despite the likelihood of substantial pain. We used Conditioned Place Preference (CPP) testing, assessments of thermal hyperalgesia and behaviour to determine the likelihood that MBT-2 bladder cancer impacts negatively on mouse welfare, such as by causing pain. There was no CPP to saline, but morphine preference in tumour bearing mice exceeded that seen in tumour-free controls. This occurred up to 10 days before the study end-point alongside reduced body weight, development of hyperalgesia and behaviour changes. These effects indicated mice experienced a negative welfare state caused by malaise (if not pain) before euthanasia. Due to the complexity of the assessments needed to demonstrate this, it is unlikely that this approach could be used for routine welfare assessment on a study-by-study basis. However, our results show mice in sufficiently similar studies are likely to benefit from more intensive severity assessment and re-evaluation of end-points with a view to implementing appropriate refinements. In this particular case, a refinement would have been to have euthanased mice at least 7 days earlier or possibly by provision of end-stage pain relief. CPP testing was found to be a helpful method to investigate the responses of mice to analgesics, possibly on a subjective level. These findings and those of other recent studies show it could be a valuable method of screening candidate analgesics for efficacy against cancer pain and possibly other pain or disease models.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalHyperalgesiaNeoplasms, ExperimentalPainUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAnalgesicsAnimalsDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalFemaleMiceAnalgesics

Identifiers

PMID25100208
PMCPMC4123882
OpenAlexW2039238655

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.