ArticlePloS one2023
Rating enrichment items by female group-housed laboratory mice in multiple binary choice tests using an RFID-based tracking system.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of the development and application of home cage monitoring in laboratory mice and rats.BMC biology · 2023Pooled it
- General Instructions for Using the IntelliCage with Mice.Current protocols · 2026Article
- Refining In-Cage Enrichment for Specialized Mouse Scenarios.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025Article
- Advancing preference testing in humans and animals.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Article
- Radio frequency identification technology reduce intravenous thrombolysis time in acute ischemic stroke.PloS one · 2023Article
- Evaluation of different types of enrichment - their usage and effect on home cage behavior in female mice.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laboratory mice spend most of their lives in cages, not experiments, so improving housing conditions is a first-choice approach to improving their welfare. Despite the increasing popularity of enrichment, little is known about the benefits from an animal perspective. For a detailed analysis, we categorized enrichment items according to their prospective use into the categories 'structural', 'housing', and 'foraging'. In homecage-based multiple binary choice tests 12 female C57BL/6J mice chose between enrichment items within the respective categories over a 46-hour period. A new analyzing method combined the binary decisions and ranked the enrichment items within each category by calculating worth values and consensus errors. Although there was no unequivocal ranking that was true in its entire rank order for all individual mice, certain elements (e.g. lattice ball, second plane) were always among the top positions. Overall, a high consensus error in ranking positions reflects strong individual differences in preferences which could not be resolved due to the relatively small sample size. However, individual differences in the preference for enrichment items highlights the importance of a varied enrichment approach, as there does not seem to be one item that satisfies the wants and needs of all individuals to the same degree. An enrichment concept, in which the needs of the animals are central, contributes to a more specific refinement of housing conditions.
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.