Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32413036›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Design of composite measure schemes for comparative severity assessment in animal-based neuroscience research: A case study focussed on rat epilepsy models.

Roelof Maarten van Dijk, Ines Koska, Andre Bleich, Rene Tolba, Isabel Seiffert, Christina Möller, Valentina Di Liberto, Steven Roger Talbot, Heidrun Potschka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. 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
–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

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

  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
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

9 authors.

Roelof Maarten van DijkInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Ines KoskaInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Andre BleichInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Rene TolbaInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Isabel SeiffertInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Christina MöllerInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Valentina Di LibertoDepartment of Experimental Biomedicine and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Steven Roger TalbotInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Heidrun PotschkaInstitute of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1506-0252

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comparative severity assessment of animal models and experimental interventions is of utmost relevance for harm-benefit analysis during ethical evaluation, an animal welfare-based model prioritization as well as the validation of refinement measures. Unfortunately, there is a lack of evidence-based approaches to grade an animal's burden in a sensitive, robust, precise, and objective manner. Particular challenges need to be considered in the context of animal-based neuroscientific research because models of neurological disorders can be characterized by relevant changes in the affective state of an animal. Here, we report about an approach for parameter selection and development of a composite measure scheme designed for precise analysis of the distress of animals in a specific model category. Data sets from the analysis of several behavioral and biochemical parameters in three different epilepsy models were subjected to a principal component analysis to select the most informative parameters. The top-ranking parameters included burrowing, open field locomotion, social interaction, and saccharin preference. These were combined to create a composite measure scheme (CMS). CMS data were subjected to cluster analysis enabling the allocation of severity levels to individual animals. The results provided information for a direct comparison between models indicating a comparable severity of the electrical and chemical post-status epilepticus models, and a lower severity of the kindling model. The new CMS can be directly applied for comparison of other rat models with seizure activity or for assessment of novel refinement approaches in the respective research field. The respective online tool for direct application of the CMS or for creating a new CMS based on other parameters from different models is available at https://github.com/mytalbot/cms. However, the robustness and generalizability needs to be further assessed in future studies. More importantly, our concept of parameter selection can serve as a practice example providing the basis for comparable approaches applicable to the development and validation of CMS for all kinds of disease models or interventions.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalSoftwareAnimalsBiological Variation, PopulationEpilepsyFemaleKindling, NeurologicLocomotionRatsRats, Sprague-DawleySocial BehaviorSpatial Behavior

Identifiers

PMID32413036
PMCPMC7228039

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.