Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28328893›Full record

ArticleLab animal2017

Improving quality of science through better animal welfare: the NC3Rs strategy.

Mark J Prescott, Katie Lidster

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lab animal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 140 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
140citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

140 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Gut microbes · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

80 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

2 authors.

Mark J PrescottNational Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), London, UK.
Katie LidsterNational Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Good animal welfare is linked to the quality of research data derived from laboratory animals, their validity as models of human disease, the number of animals required to reach statistical significance and the reproducibility of in vivo studies. Identifying new ways of understanding and improving animal welfare, and promoting these in the scientific community, is therefore a key part of the work of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). Our strategy for animal welfare includes funding research to generate an evidence base to support refinements, office-led data sharing to challenge existing practices, events and networks to raise awareness of the evidence base, and the creation of online and other resources to support practical implementation of refinement opportunities.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationAnimal HusbandryAnimalsAnimals, LaboratoryAnimal WelfareUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID28328893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.