Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32517144›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020

The Impact of Common Recovery Blood Sampling Methods, in Mice (Mus Musculus), on Well-Being and Sample Quality: A Systematic Review.

Alexandra L Whittaker, Timothy H Barker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The 3Rs in Experimental Liver Disease.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  3. A Comparison of Blood Collection Techniques in Mice and their Effects on Welfare.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2022
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Distress Analysis of Mice with Cervical Arteriovenous Fistulas.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Refinements to Animal Models for Biomedical Research.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
  8. 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

2 authors.

Alexandra L WhittakerSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus, Roseworthy, South Australia 5371, Australia.
Timothy H BarkerJBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blood sampling is often performed in laboratory mice. Sampling techniques have the potential to cause pain, distress and impact on lifetime cumulative experience. In spite of institutions commonly providing guidance to researchers on these methods, and the existence of published guidelines, no systematic evaluation of the evidence on this topic exists. A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed, identifying 27 studies on the impact of recovery blood sample techniques on mouse welfare and sample quality. Studies were appraised for quality using the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool. In spite of an acceptable number of studies being located, few studies examined the same pairwise comparisons. Additionally, there was considerable heterogeneity in study design and outcomes, with many studies being at a high risk of bias. Consequently, results were synthesised using the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guidelines. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was utilised for assessment of certainty in the evidence. Due to the heterogeneity and GRADE findings, it was concluded that there was not enough high-quality evidence to make any recommendations on the optimal method of blood sampling. Future high-quality studies, with standardised outcome measures and large sample sizes, are required.

Indexed as

blood samplemouseretrobulbarsublingualsubmandibularwell-being

Identifiers

PMID32517144
PMCPMC7341276

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.