Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29186765›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2017

To Group or Not to Group? Good Practice for Housing Male Laboratory Mice.

Sarah Kappel, Penny Hawkins, Michael T Mendl

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 113 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
113citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
23.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

113 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 189 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Effects of Cage Change and Nest Transfer on Artificial Intelligence-Measured Behaviors in Male C57BL/6 Mice.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Conditioned versus innate effort-based tasks reveal divergence in antidepressant effect on motivational state in male mice.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

53 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah KappelBristol Veterinary School, Bristol University, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
Penny HawkinsResearch Animals Department, RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK
Michael T MendlBristol Veterinary School, Bristol University, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
University of Bristol · GBRoyal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is widely recommended to group-house male laboratory mice because they are 'social animals', but male mice do not naturally share territories and aggression can be a serious welfare problem. Even without aggression, not all animals within a group will be in a state of positive welfare. Rather, many male mice may be negatively affected by the stress of repeated social defeat and subordination, raising concerns about welfare and also research validity. However, individual housing may not be an appropriate solution, given the welfare implications associated with no social contact. An essential question is whether it is in the best welfare interests of male mice to be group- or singly housed. This review explores the likely impacts-positive and negative-of both housing conditions, presents results of a survey of current practice and awareness of mouse behavior, and includes recommendations for good practice and future research. We conclude that whether group- or single-housing is better (or less worse) in any situation is highly context-dependent according to several factors including strain, age, social position, life experiences, and housing and husbandry protocols. It is important to recognise this and evaluate what is preferable from animal welfare and ethical perspectives in each case.

Indexed as

animal husbandryanimal managementanimal welfaregroup housingmale micemouse aggressionmouse husbandrymouse welfarerefinementsingle housingsocial organisation

Identifiers

PMID29186765
PMCPMC5742782
OpenAlexW2766574891

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.