Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32988432›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2021

Identification of Sick or Dead Mice (

Lisa A Burlingame, Brianna N Gaskill, Jennifer Ls Lofgren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Identification of Rodent Husbandry Refinement Opportunities through Benchmarking and Collaboration.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2022
    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

3 authors.

Lisa A BurlingameRefinement and Enrichment Advancements Laboratory (REAL), Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan;, Email: lzustiak@umich.edu.
Brianna N GaskillDepartment of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Jennifer Ls LofgrenRefinement and Enrichment Advancements Laboratory (REAL), Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although nesting material is beneficial to the welfare of laboratory mice, provision of appropriate amounts may impair visualization of the mice. In anticipation of our academic research institution transitioning to providing 6 grams of nesting material to all mice, we conducted a 2-step prospective epidemiologic study to 1) evaluate whether 0, 2, or 6 grams of nesting material alters the ability to identify sick or dead mice, and 2) evaluate the number and severity of health concerns identified in the presence of 6 grams of crinkle paper nesting material at cage-side health check as compared with cage change. Animal Treatment Reports (ATRs) and death incidences were collected across a variety of research and breeding uses. This information was used to determine if nesting material prevented prompt identification of mice in need of veterinary attention. The clinical health condition category (CHCC) was determined based on the severity of the animal's health condition on initial veterinary exam. Additional assessment determined if the identification of the animal's condition was a success (early-stage or mild illness when first identified) or a failure (late-stage or endstage illness when first identified). Mice that died spontaneously were also assessed with regard to which observation activity was being performed at the time of the animal's identification (daily health check or cage change) and location of the mouse in relation to the nest. The results showed that nesting material did not cause a significant increase in the severity of CHCCs at the time reported for veterinary evaluation. Successful identification of health concerns occurred significantly more often than failures. Death rates were similar between all nesting groups, and dead mice were more likely to be located outside of the nest. In summary, nesting material did not hinder the ability to identify mice in need of veterinary care during routine cage-side health checks and did not critically affect the ability to identify mice that died spontaneously. These results indicate that mice can receive appropriate amounts of crinkle paper nesting material without lowering the ability of staff to recognize mice in need of veterinary attention.

Indexed as

Housing, AnimalNesting BehaviorAnimalsMiceProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID32988432
PMCPMC7831342

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.