Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36127131›Full record

ArticleComparative medicine2022

Physiologic Effects of Housing Rats in Metabolic Cages.

Marta Giral, Clara Armengol, Amadeu Gavaldà

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Comparative medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

3 authors.

Marta GiralAnimal Research Facilities, Almirall SA, Barcelona, Spain;, Email: marta.giral@almirall.com.
Clara ArmengolClinical Development Department, Almirall SA, Barcelona, Spain.
Amadeu GavaldàPharmacology Department, Almirall SA, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, metabolic cages (MC) are the only way to achieve serial sampling of urine and feces in rodents. However, the use of this caging creates a dramatic change from an animal's usual microenvironment. Here we sought to examine the effect of MC on physiologic parameters that are stress-responsive in rats. We surgically implanted 8 male Wistar rats (weight, 150 to 175 g) with telemetric transmitters and allowed them to recover for at least 2 wk. At the beginning of the study, the rats were moved to conventional open-top cages, and telemetry recording was initiated. After 24 h, the rats were moved to MC or to another conventional cage and the recording continued for another 24 h. Finally, the rats were returned to their home cages, and telemetry recording was performed for a final 24 h. After 10 days, this process was then repeated, with MC and conventional assignments switched. During the 78-h monitoring period, we recorded heart rate, arterial blood pressure, locomotor activity, body weight, and food and water consumption. Heart rate and arterial blood pressure showed transient but significant changes. Locomotor activity during the dark phase was greatly decreased in MC compared with conventional cages, perhaps due to space constraints. In addition, when the rats were housed in MC, they showed a small but significant weight loss. Food consumption did not differ between housing environments, but water consumption was lower when rats were in MC. In conclusion, the housing of rats in MC for 24 h can elicit mild and reversible cardiovascular changes. This finding is consistent with European Directive 2010/63/EU, which considers short-term (less than 24 h) restraint in MC a procedure of mild severity.

Indexed as

Housing, AnimalTelemetryAnimalsHeart RateMaleRatsRats, WistarRestraint, Physical

Identifiers

PMID36127131
PMCPMC9827597

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.