Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34359138›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Identification of Animal-Based Welfare Indicators in Captive Reptiles: A Delphi Consultation Survey.

Alexandra L Whittaker, Brianna Golder-Dewar, Jordyn L Triggs, Sally L Sherwen, David J McLelland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review of Rat (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Improving welfare assessment in aquaculture.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Alexandra L WhittakerRoseworthy Campus, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9011-8296
Brianna Golder-DewarRoseworthy Campus, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia.
Jordyn L TriggsRoseworthy Campus, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia.
Sally L SherwenWildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia.
David J McLellandRoseworthy Campus, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4125-9126

Funding

Australian Veterinary Association 2019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an increasing focus on evidence-based welfare assessment by animal care staff in zoos, along with a strong interest in animal welfare by the zoo-visiting public, to the extent that this can influence their choice of institutions to visit. Regulatory oversight of animal welfare standards continues to strengthen across many jurisdictions. Zoos are increasingly formalizing their practices with the development and refinement of evidence-based welfare assessment tools. There has been a drive for welfare assessment tools to comprise both resource-based and animal-based measures. However, animal-based indicators are not always well characterized, in terms of their nature and whether they infer a positive or negative affective state. This is especially so for reptiles, which are often considered behaviorally inexpressive and are under-researched. In this study, a Delphi consultation approach was used to gather expert opinion on the suitability of potential animal-based indicators of welfare for inclusion in a welfare assessment tool across four families of reptiles: Agamidae, Chelidae, Pythonidae, and Testudinidae. Two rounds of online surveys were conducted eliciting responses from a global group of professionals who work with reptiles. In the first survey, respondents were provided with an author-derived list of potential animal-based indicators for consideration of their validity and practicality as welfare indicators. The indicators were refined for the second survey including only those indicators that were considered valid or practical on the first survey (≥4 on a 5-point Likert scale), and that achieved ≥70% consensus amongst experts. In the second survey, respondents were asked to re-evaluate the reliability and practicality of the indicators and to rank them on these facets. Eight to ten assessment indicators for each family of reptiles were identified from Survey 2. These indicators were often health related, for example, presence of oculo-nasal discharge or wounds. However, some true behavioral indicators were identified, such as showing species-specific interest and alertness. These indicators should now be incorporated into taxon-tailored welfare assessment tools for trial and validation in captive reptile populations. This study provides a next step towards developing reptile-specific animal welfare assessment tools for these often-overlooked animals.

Indexed as

animal-based assessmentDelphireptilewelfare

Identifiers

PMID34359138
PMCPMC8300299

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.