Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29359995›Full record

ArticleLaboratory animals2018

Classification and reporting of severity experienced by animals used in scientific procedures: FELASA/ECLAM/ESLAV Working Group report.

David Smith, David Anderson, Anne-Dominique Degryse, Carla Bol, Ana Criado, Alessia Ferrara, Nuno Henrique Franco, Istvan Gyertyan, Jose M Orellana, Grete Ostergaard and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Laboratory animals, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Frontiers in nutrition · 2023
    Article
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

12 authors at 9 institutions in 8 countries.

David Smith1 FELASA, Federation for Laboratory Animal Science Associations, Eye, Suffolk, UK.
David Anderson2 LASA, PO Box 524, Hull, HU9 9HE, UK.
Anne-Dominique Degryse3 Domaine de Mirabel, Puylaurens, France.
Carla Bol4 Charles River Laboratories, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Ana Criado5 Via Fleming 4, Verona, Italy.
Alessia Ferrara6 Aptuit, Verona, Italy.
Nuno Henrique Franco7 Instituto de Investigacao e Inovacao, Universidade do Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4015-0532
Istvan Gyertyan8 Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Jose M Orellana9 Universidad de Alcala Campus, Universitario Alcala de Henares, Madrid, Spain.
Grete Ostergaard10 University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Orsolya Varga11 University of Debrecen, Hungary.
Hanna-Marja Voipio12 University of Oulu, Finland.
Aptuit (Italy) · ITCharles River Laboratories (Netherlands) · NLi3S - Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto · PTSemmelweis University · HUUniversidad de Alcalá · ESUniversities Federation for Animal Welfare · GBUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Debrecen · HUUniversity of Oulu · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Directive 2010/63/EU introduced requirements for the classification of the severity of procedures to be applied during the project authorisation process to use animals in scientific procedures and also to report actual severity experienced by each animal used in such procedures. These requirements offer opportunities during the design, conduct and reporting of procedures to consider the adverse effects of procedures and how these can be reduced to minimize the welfare consequences for the animals. Better recording and reporting of adverse effects should also help in highlighting priorities for refinement of future similar procedures and benchmarking good practice. Reporting of actual severity should help inform the public of the relative severity of different areas of scientific research and, over time, may show trends regarding refinement. Consistency of assignment of severity categories across Member States is a key requirement, particularly if re-use is considered, or the safeguard clause is to be invoked. The examples of severity classification given in Annex VIII are limited in number, and have little descriptive power to aid assignment. Additionally, the examples given often relate to the procedure and do not attempt to assess the outcome, such as adverse effects that may occur. The aim of this report is to deliver guidance on the assignment of severity, both prospectively and at the end of a procedure. A number of animal models, in current use, have been used to illustrate the severity assessment process from inception of the project, through monitoring during the course of the procedure to the final assessment of actual severity at the end of the procedure (Appendix 1).

Indexed as

Animals, LaboratoryAnimal WelfareModels, AnimalAnimalsMethodsRetrospective StudiesTrauma Severity IndicesAnimalsethics & welfarehumane end-pointproceduresrefinementseverity

Identifiers

PMID29359995
PMCPMC5987990
OpenAlexW2785020920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.