Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32429139›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020

Navigating Uncertainties: How to Assess Welfare and Harm in Genetically Altered Animals Responsibly-A Practical Guideline.

Anne Zintzsch, Elena Noe, Herwig Grimm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Practical Application of the 3Rs in Rodent Transgenesis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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.

Anne ZintzschInstitute of Laboratory Animal Science, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, 1210 Vienna ,Austria.
Elena NoeMesserli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University Vienna, University Vienna, 1010 Vienna, Austria.
Herwig GrimmMesserli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University Vienna, University Vienna, 1010 Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of animals in research requires careful ethical consideration of whether the burden on the animals is justified. As one important part of the project evaluation, a harm-benefit analysis (HBA) must be carried out in order to approve projects in line with the EU Directive 2010/63/EU. This implies that harms and benefits must be assessed prospectively beforehand in order to weigh them. Although there are different methods of weighing, it is clear that an assessment of prospective harms and benefits is a precondition for any weighing procedure. In this context, projects that use genetically altered (GA) lines raise new issues. A unique challenge when using GA lines is the significant lack of knowledge in this context, making it difficult and sometimes impossible to estimate harm prospectively with sufficient certainty, since it is not predictable what sort of harm-if at all-the animals are going to experience. Therefore, this contribution aims to deal with the challenges of harm assessment in GA animals and their implications for welfare assessment and the HBA. A practical guideline is presented herein to serve as guidance for relevant harm factors and address the main challenges, particularly when dealing with uncertainties in the process of HBA.

Indexed as

3RsAGENTgenetically altered animalsharm-benefit analysisseverity classificationuncertaintywelfare assessment

Identifiers

PMID32429139
PMCPMC7278426

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.