Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26305700›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Anesthesia and Monitoring in Small Laboratory Mammals Used in Anesthesiology, Respiratory and Critical Care Research: A Systematic Review on the Current Reporting in Top-10 Impact Factor Ranked Journals.

Christopher Uhlig, Hannes Krause, Thea Koch, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Peter Markus Spieth

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Animal experimental research design in critical care.BMC medical research methodology · 2018
    Article
  16. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher UhligPulmonary Engineering Group, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Therapy, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany.
Hannes KrausePulmonary Engineering Group, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Therapy, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany.
Thea KochPulmonary Engineering Group, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Therapy, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany.
Marcelo Gama de AbreuPulmonary Engineering Group, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Therapy, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany.
Peter Markus SpiethPulmonary Engineering Group, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Therapy, University Hospital Dresden, Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany.
TU Dresden · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleThis study aimed to investigate the quality of reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia in experimental studies in small laboratory mammals published in the top ten impact factor journals.

methodsA descriptive systematic review was conducted and data was abstracted from the ten highest ranked journals with respect to impact factor in the categories 'Anesthesiology', 'Critical Care Medicine' and 'Respiratory System' as defined by the 2012 Journal Citation Reports. Inclusion criteria according to PICOS criteria were as follows: 1) population: small laboratory mammals; 2) intervention: any form of anesthesia and/or euthanasia; 3) comparison: not specified; 4) primary outcome: type of anesthesia, anesthetic agents and type of euthanasia; secondary outcome: animal characteristics, monitoring, mechanical ventilation, fluid management, postoperative pain therapy, animal care approval, sample size calculation and performed interventions; 5) study: experimental studies. Anesthesia, euthanasia, and monitoring were analyzed per performed intervention in each article.

resultsThe search yielded 845 articles with 1,041 interventions of interest. Throughout the manuscripts we found poor quality and frequency of reporting with respect to completeness of data on animal characteristics as well as euthanasia, while anesthesia (732/1041, 70.3%) and interventions without survival (970/1041, 93.2%) per se were frequently reported. Premedication and neuromuscular blocking agents were reported in 169/732 (23.1%) and 38/732 (5.2%) interventions, respectively. Frequency of reporting of analgesia during (117/610, 19.1%) and after painful procedures (38/364, 10.4%) was low. Euthanasia practice was reported as anesthesia (348/501, 69%), transcardial perfusion (37/501, 8%), carbon dioxide (26/501, 6%), decapitation (22/501, 5%), exsanguination (23/501, 5%), other (25/501, 5%) and not specified (20/501, 4%, respectively.

conclusionsThe present systematic review revealed insufficient reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia methods throughout experimental studies in small laboratory mammals. Specific guidelines for anesthesia and euthanasia regimens should be considered to achieve comparability, quality of animal experiments and animal welfare. These measures are of special interest when translating experimental findings to future clinical applications.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaAnesthesiologyCritical CareJournal Impact FactorMonitoring, PhysiologicRespirationAnimalsAnimals, LaboratoryEuthanasiaMammalsPeriodicals as TopicResearchResearch ReportRespiration, Artificial

Identifiers

PMID26305700
PMCPMC4549323
OpenAlexW1850397376

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.