SynthesisLaboratory animals2017
A systematic review of discomfort due to toe or ear clipping in laboratory rodents.
Synthesis in Laboratory animals, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of niacin and NAD metabolite treatment in infectious disease animal studies suggests benefit but requires confirmation in clinically relevant models.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- The Effects of Obesity on Outcome in Preclinical Animal Models of Infection and Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of obesity · 2020Pooled it
- Lions and tigers and AI, oh my: an ethical framework for human-AI interaction based on the five freedoms of animal welfare.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Should I Stay or Should I Go? Seasonal Fluctuations of Wood Mouse Populations in Fields Surrounded by Woodlands.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Effect of low-to-moderate hyperoxia on lung injury in preclinical animal models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2023Review
- A Comparison of Small Rodent Assemblages after a 20 Year Interval in the Alps.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- The Pen Is Milder Than the Blade: Identification Marking Mice Using Ink on the Tail Appears More Humane Than Ear-Punching Even with Local Anaesthetic.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Checkpoint inhibitor therapy in preclinical sepsis models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2020Article
- Welfare and Scientific Considerations of Tattooing and Ear Tagging for Mouse Identification.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Toe clipping and ear clipping (also ear notching or ear punching) are frequently used methods for individual identification of laboratory rodents. These procedures potentially cause severe discomfort, which can reduce animal welfare and distort experimental results. However, no systematic summary of the evidence on this topic currently exists. We conducted a systematic review of the evidence for discomfort due to toe or ear clipping in rodents. The review methodology was pre-specified in a registered review protocol. The population, intervention, control, outcome (PICO) question was: In rodents, what is the effect of toe clipping or ear clipping, compared with no clipping or sham clipping, on welfare-related outcomes? Through a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and grey literature, we identified seven studies on the effect of ear clipping on animal welfare, and five such studies on toe clipping. Studies were included in the review if they contained original data from an in vivo experiment in rodents, assessing the effect of toe clipping or ear clipping on a welfare-related outcome. Case studies and studies applying unsuitable co-interventions were excluded. Study quality was appraised using an extended version of SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE)'s risk of bias tool for animal studies. Study characteristics and outcome measures were highly heterogeneous, and there was an unclear or high risk of bias in all studies. We therefore present a narrative synthesis of the evidence identified. None of the studies reported a sample size calculation. Out of over 60 different outcomes, we found evidence of discomfort due to ear clipping in the form of increased respiratory volume, vocalization and blood pressure. For toe clipping, increased vocalization and decreased motor activity in pups were found, as well as long-term effects in the form of reduced grip strength and swimming ability in adults. In conclusion, there is too little evidence to reliably assess discomfort due to toe or ear clipping, and the quality of the available evidence is uncertain. Adequately powered, high-quality studies reporting reliable, relevant outcome measures are needed to accurately assess the impact of these identification techniques. Until more reliable evidence is available, any effect of toe clipping or ear clipping on animal welfare and study results cannot be confirmed or excluded.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.