Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36328418›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2022

Evaluation and Refinement of a Spot-change-only Cage Management System for Mice.

Tim Jones, Tanayott Thaweethai, Denise Molk, Laurie Ingram, Lori S Palley, Donna Jarrell

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Enhancing Rodent Welfare, Cost Savings, and Efficiency: Implementation and Review of Data-Driven Improvements.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2026
    Review
  2. Maintaining Welfare While Extending Cage-Change Intervals: A Performance-Based Study in IVC-Housed Mice.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tim JonesCenter for Comparative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA;, Email: tjones33@mgh.harvard.edu.
Tanayott ThaweethaiBiostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston MA.
Denise MolkCenter for Comparative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Laurie IngramCenter for Comparative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Lori S PalleyCenter for Comparative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Donna JarrellCenter for Comparative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Maximizing operational efficiency while maintaining appropriate animal housing conditions is a continuous focus of research animal care programs. Our institution's longstanding approach to cage-change management included scheduled cage changes every 2 wk, with spot changes if cages met established visual criteria during the intervening period. This 2-wk plus spot changing (2WS) practice for mice housed in IVC was problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic when the need arose to minimize workload to reduce on-site staffing out of concern for employee health and possible absenteeism. With the approval of the IACUC, a spot-change-only (SCO) process was adopted, with the requirement to evaluate microenvironmental parameters under both practices to confirm acceptable equivalence. These parameters (humidity, temperature, and ammonia) were evaluated in a controlled study that found no significant difference between the 2 groups. Ammonia levels did not exceed 10 ppm in any group throughout the study. To assess operational differences between these 2 approaches, we collected cage-change data and employee feedback from facilities operating under these schemes. The SCO method required fewer cage changes than did the 2WS method (10.3% per day with 2WS and 8.4% per day with SCO). Despite this benefit, through a Plan-Do-Check-Act process that has been regularly employed at our institution, employee feedback identified important operational challenges associated with the SCO practice. The SCO approach was thus refined into a scheduled spot change (SSC) practice that builds on the SCO model by incorporating a scheduled focused cage evaluation period. Based on subsequent feedback, the SSC was found to retain the efficiency benefits afforded by the SCO model and simultaneously alleviated staff and operational concerns. This result underscores the importance of integrating staff feedback with a performance standard-based approach when assessing cage-change management.

Indexed as

AmmoniaCOVID-19Animal HusbandryAnimalsHousing, AnimalHumansMicePandemicsAmmonia

Identifiers

PMID36328418
PMCPMC9732769

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.