Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36439346›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2022

RELSA-A multidimensional procedure for the comparative assessment of well-being and the quantitative determination of severity in experimental procedures.

Steven R Talbot, Birgitta Struve, Laura Wassermann, Miriam Heider, Nora Weegh, Tilo Knape, Martine C J Hofmann, Andreas von Knethen, Paulin Jirkof, Christine Häger and 1 more

Abstract 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 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Steven R TalbotInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.
Birgitta StruveInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.
Laura WassermannInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.
Miriam HeiderInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.
Nora WeeghInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.
Tilo KnapeFraunhofer Institute for Translational Medicine and Pharmacology (ITMP), Frankfurt, Germany.
Martine C J HofmannFraunhofer Institute for Translational Medicine and Pharmacology (ITMP), Frankfurt, Germany.
Andreas von KnethenFraunhofer Institute for Translational Medicine and Pharmacology (ITMP), Frankfurt, Germany.
Paulin JirkofOffice for Animal Welfare and 3Rs, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Christine HägerInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.
André BleichInstitute for Laboratory Animal Science and Central Animal Facility, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Good science in translational research requires good animal welfare according to the principles of 3Rs. In many countries, determining animal welfare is a mandatory legal requirement, implying a categorization of animal suffering, traditionally dominated by subjective scorings. However, how such methods can be objectified and refined to compare impairments between animals, subgroups, and animal models remained unclear. Therefore, we developed the RELative Severity Assessment (RELSA) procedure to establish an evidence-based method based on quantitative outcome measures such as body weight, burrowing behavior, heart rate, heart rate variability, temperature, and activity to obtain a relative metric for severity comparisons. The RELSA procedure provided the necessary framework to get severity gradings in TM-implanted mice, yielding four distinct RELSA thresholds L1<0.27, L2<0.59, L3<0.79, and L4<3.45. We show further that severity patterns in the contributing variables are time and model-specific and use this information to obtain contextualized

Indexed as

animal experimentsanimal welfarecolitis modeldata sciencelaboratory animalsepsis modelseverity assessmentsurgical models

Identifiers

PMID36439346
PMCPMC9691969

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.