Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26395864›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

Reducing the stress of drug administration: implications for the 3Rs.

Sarah A Stuart, Emma S J Robinson

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Carprofen and buprenorphine delivery using micropipette-guided drug administration (MDA) in mice.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. VTA µ-Opioidergic Neurons Facilitate Low Sociability in Protracted Opioid Abstinence.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sarah A StuartSchool of Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Bristol, University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TD, United Kingdom.
Emma S J RobinsonSchool of Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Bristol, University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TD, United Kingdom.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/L009137/1Medical Research Council MR/L011212/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Restraint in animals is known to cause stress but is used during almost all scientific procedures in rodents, representing a major welfare and scientific issue. Administration of substances, a key part of most scientific procedures, almost always involves physical restraint of the animal. In this study, we developed a method to inject substances to rats using a non-restrained technique. We then compared the physiological, behavioral and emotional impacts of restrained versus non-restrained injection procedures. Our results highlight the negative welfare implications associated with physical restraint and demonstrate a method which can be used to avoid this. Our work shows how adopting strategies that avoid restraint can minimize a widespread source of stress in laboratory animals and improve welfare through refinement.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareAnimalsInjectionsMaleRatsRats, WistarRestraint, PhysicalStress, Psychological

Identifiers

PMID26395864
PMCPMC4585806

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.