Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29630060›Full record

ArticleJournal of visualized experiments : JoVE2018

Systematic Assessment of Well-Being in Mice for Procedures Using General Anesthesia.

Katharina Hohlbaum, Bettina Bert, Silke Dietze, Rupert Palme, Heidrun Fink, Christa Thöne-Reineke

Open access · greenAbstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Reliability of the Mouse Grimace Scale in C57BL/6JRj Mice.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Katharina HohlbaumInstitute of Animal Welfare, Animal Behavior and Laboratory Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin; Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin; Katharina.Hohlbaum@fu-berlin.de.
Bettina BertInstitute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin; German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR).
Silke DietzeInstitute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin.
Rupert PalmeUnit of Physiology, Pathophysiology and Experimental Endocrinology, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine.
Heidrun FinkInstitute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin.
Christa Thöne-ReinekeInstitute of Animal Welfare, Animal Behavior and Laboratory Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin.
Freie Universität Berlin · DEInstitute of Pharmacology · CZUniversity of Veterinary Medicine · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In keeping with the 3R Principle (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) developed by Russel and Burch, scientific research should use alternatives to animal experimentation whenever possible. When there is no alternative to animal experimentation, the total number of laboratory animals used should be the minimum needed to obtain valuable data. Moreover, appropriate refinement measures should be applied to minimize pain, suffering, and distress accompanying the experimental procedure. The categories used to classify the degree of pain, suffering, and distress are non-recovery, mild, moderate, or severe (EU Directive 2010/63). To determine which categories apply in individual cases, it is crucial to use scientifically sound tools. The well-being-assessment protocol presented here is designed for procedures during which general anesthesia is used. The protocol focuses on home cage activity, the Mouse Grimace Scale, and luxury behaviors such as burrowing and nest building behavior as indicators of well-being. It also uses the free exploratory paradigm for trait anxiety-related behavior. Fecal corticosterone metabolites as indicators of acute stress are measured over the 24-h post-anesthetic period. The protocol provides scientifically solid information on the well-being of mice following general anesthesia. Due to its simplicity, the protocol can easily be adapted and integrated in a planned study. Although it does not provide a scale to classify distress in categories according to the EU Directive 2010/63, it can help researchers estimate the degree of severity of a procedure using scientifically sound data. It provides a way to improve the assessment of well-being in a scientific, animal-centered manner.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, GeneralAnimalsAnimals, LaboratoryBehavior, AnimalMice

Identifiers

PMID29630060
PMCPMC5933230
OpenAlexW2790090828

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.