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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Astragaloside IV on Hearing, Inflammatory Factors, and Intestinal Flora in Mice Exposed to Noise.Metabolites · 2024Article
- The 3Rs in Experimental Liver Disease.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- A Comparison of Blood Collection Techniques in Mice and their Effects on Welfare.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2022Article
- The neurobiology of pain and facial movements in rodents: Clinical applications and current research.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Review
- Distress Analysis of Mice with Cervical Arteriovenous Fistulas.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Methods Used and Application of the Mouse Grimace Scale in Biomedical Research 10 Years on: A Scoping Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Refinements to Animal Models for Biomedical Research.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- Impact of three commonly used blood sampling techniques on the welfare of laboratory mice: Taking the animal's perspective.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.