Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35372532›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2022

The "WWHow" Concept for Prospective Categorization of Post-operative Severity Assessment in Mice and Rats.

Anke Tappe-Theodor, Claudia Pitzer, Lars Lewejohann, Paulin Jirkof, Katja Siegeler, Astra Segelcke, Natascha Drude, Bruno Pradier, Esther Pogatzki-Zahn, Britta Hollinderbäumer and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Pain Research and Treatment: Policy Implications.Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Anke Tappe-TheodorInstitute of Pharmacology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Claudia PitzerInterdisciplinary Neurobehavioral Core, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lars LewejohannInstitute of Animal Welfare, Animal Behavior and Laboratory Animal Science, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Paulin JirkofOffice for Animal Welfare and 3Rs, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Katja SiegelerDepartment of Work and Environmental Protection, Westphalian Wilhelms University Muenster, Münster, Germany.
Astra SegelckeIndependent Researcher, Herne, Germany.
Natascha DrudeBerlin Institute of Health (BIH) at Charité, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin, Germany.
Bruno PradierDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Münster, Germany.
Esther Pogatzki-ZahnDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Münster, Germany.
Britta HollinderbäumerMember of Working Group for Animal Welfare, BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Daniel SegelckeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Münster, Germany.
University Hospital Münster · DEHeidelberg University · DEBerlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEBUND Naturschutz · DEFreie Universität Berlin · DEUniversity of Münster · DEUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prospective severity assessment in animal experiments in the categories' non-recovery, mild, moderate, and severe is part of each approval process and serves to estimate the harm/benefit. Harms are essential for evaluating ethical justifiability, and on the other hand, they may represent confounders and effect modifiers within an experiment. Catalogs and guidelines provide a way to assess the experimental severity prospectively but are limited in adaptation due to their nature of representing particular examples without clear explanations of the assessment strategies. To provide more flexibility for current and future practices, we developed the modular Where-What-How (WWHow) concept, which applies findings from pre-clinical studies using surgical-induced pain models in mice and rats to provide a prospective severity assessment. The WWHow concept integrates intra-operative characteristics for predicting the maximum expected severity of surgical procedures. The assessed severity categorization is mainly congruent with examples in established catalogs; however, because the WWHow concept is based on anatomical location, detailed analysis of the tissue trauma and other intra-operative characteristics, it enables refinement actions, provides the basis for a fact-based dialogue with authority officials and other stakeholders, and helps to identify confounder factors of study findings.

Indexed as

micepostoperativeprospectiveratsrodentsseverity assessmentsurgery surgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID35372532
PMCPMC8964947
OpenAlexW4220918557

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.