ArticleApplied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association2020
Development of Improved Devices for Handling and Restraining Experimental Laboratory Mice.
Article in Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Most animal handling procedures are associated with injuries among veterinary staff and laboratory animal researchers. However, much of the currently available animal handling equipment is inadequate, limiting access to the treated animal or making workflow cumbersome. Moreover, restraining animals to perform procedures, such as blood collection or injection, elicits stress in both the animal and the worker. Herein, we present 4 home-built restraint and blood collection devices in extensive use in our institute. Methods: Animal laboratory workers and experienced veterinarians regularly using the devices (n = 14) were asked to complete a survey ranking the contribution of the devices to worker safety and procedural efficiency. Results: The overwhelming majority of responders (≥75%) associated all 4 devices with substantial improvements in worker safety and procedural efficiency. There were no reports of impaired workflow or safety when using the devices. Discussion: Infection and exposure control may be implemented on various levels, including use of safer procedures, such as injection and blood collection devices. The presented intuitive handling and restraint devices allow the animal worker/researcher to perform various procedures safely and efficiently while eliciting less animal and worker stress. The devices can be easily adjusted to accommodate animal size and disease status. Conclusion: The current devices will serve as prototypes for design of devices for larger laboratory animals.
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.